NEW WRIT

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county constituency of Crewe and Nantwich in the room of Gwyneth Patricia Dunwoody, deceased. — [Mr. Hoon.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I advise the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) that all he can do now is oppose the motion. If he does so, the matter will be dealt with as the first public business after parliamentary questions. Does he wish to oppose?

Nicholas Winterton: I wish to oppose, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, the matter will be taken after questions.

Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Food Prices

Stephen Crabb: What assessment his Department has made of the effect of increases in world food prices on developing countries.

Douglas Alexander: The Government are very concerned about the effect of rising food prices on developing countries. According to the World Bank, 850 million people are already going hungry, and as prices rise that number will increase. The international community must act now both to help the world's poorest people to cope and to address the underlying causes of the current hardship. Last week, the Prime Minister hosted a meeting with leading experts, including the head of the World Food Programme, to strengthen the international response to the growing crisis. In addition, the UK Government announced a £455 million aid package to provide assistance to the hardest hit and to address long-term solutions.

Stephen Crabb: The new money is welcome, although only £30 million is going into emergency food aid. Given that many commentators have been predicting that the dash for biofuels would result in exactly the sort of negative consequences that we are seeing in world food markets, why is it only now that the right hon. Gentleman's Department is sounding a cautionary note about the use of biofuels? Will he confirm whether he is opposed to or in favour of the continued use of the renewable transport fuels obligations?

Douglas Alexander: The Government have announced the Gallagher review to ensure that the full economic, environmental and social impact of biofuel production is taken into account. However, I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's line of questioning, given the position that his own party's leader took on the renewable transport fuels obligation. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not allow that.

John Spellar: We all acknowledge that rising living standards, biofuels and some crop failures have all had an impact on rising prices, but is it not a fact that prices have been pushed up to astronomical levels by rampant speculation in the market? Are not these speculators gambling with people's lives, so what will the international community do about it?

Douglas Alexander: As I made clear, a range of different people from a range of different parties have previously argued the case for biofuels, but it is right to recognise that a range of different causes are affecting the rise in food prices. There has been a drought in Australia, which has significantly affected agricultural production; there is, of course, concern about biofuels; there is a rise in commodity prices, not least in the cost of petroleum, which has contributed to a rise in input costs such as fertiliser; and consideration needs to be given to the operation of the agricultural market. That is why we have continued to argue the case for common agricultural policy reform and why our own Prime Minister made clear to G8 leaders the need for a co-ordinated international response.

Hywel Williams: Does the Secretary of State accept that the encouragement of home production is a legitimate part of the response to the world food crisis?

Douglas Alexander: There appears to be conflicting evidence as to whether the immediate challenge that we face is a function of sufficient levels of food but inadequacy of distribution through the market, or a global deficit in food production. That is why we need to consider the approach both of the UK Government and of the European Union, while addressing the immediate humanitarian need and raising levels of agricultural production elsewhere in the world, particularly in Africa, where we have seen a decline in agricultural productivity in recent decades, in sharp contrast to countries such as India where we have seen a significant uplift.

Mark Lazarowicz: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the worldwide online petition on the crisis, launched by the international citizens' movement, Avaaz, which has already been signed by almost 100,000 people? I invite my right hon. Friend to sign it, as I have. Does he agree that the petition confirms that people worldwide are demanding action from world leaders to solve this crisis—action now, not months of talking and negotiation?

Douglas Alexander: I agree entirely. It is of real concern to billions of people around the world that 850 million people are already hungry, and that the figure is potentially set to rise. That not only presents a challenge to the Government, who have sought a genuinely co-ordinated international response, but imposes a responsibility on business, civil society and individuals.

Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that there is a need for sustainable biofuels, and that a major reason for rising food prices is rising living standards in countries such as China and India? Will he redeploy the resources at his Department's disposal to ensure that we can raise productivity levels in parts of Africa using the expertise that exists in this country, which the International Development Committee has called on the Government to mobilise more effectively in the future?

Douglas Alexander: It is true that significant and sustained economic growth in China is leading to a different pattern of consumption—principally an increase in meat consumption, which is a direct consequence of the fall in the production of maize and other crops in recent years. The right hon. Gentleman made a more general point about biofuels. Of course we must distinguish between those that may be sustainable and those that are judged not to be. We are at risk of demonising the whole issue of biofuels, when what we actually need are facts rather than anecdotes.
	As for the right hon. Gentleman's substantive point about DFID's contribution, at the meeting that he attended in Downing street last week we were able to announce the provision of £400 million for agricultural research, and we want to see that money flow into exactly the sort of productivity increase to which he has referred.

Lindsay Hoyle: The dash for biofuels is beginning to have a real effect on the food market—it is leading to food shortages in some countries, and we have observed the escalation of prices—but what effect is it having in countries that are offering people huge grants to grow crops for biofuels rather than food? Is that not what will really damage the world in future?

Douglas Alexander: As I have said, I expect the Gallagher review to examine precisely those issues in trying to discern the contribution of biofuels to sustainability, or to a lack of sustainability. A range of subsidies has been introduced by a range of countries for different reasons to support biofuel production. Research is important to our understanding of the challenge of sustainability, but, as our Prime Minister pointed out in his letter, we also need a co-ordinated international response to ensure that the dialogue is not limited to the United Kingdom but takes place in the other countries that are producing biofuels.

Michael Moore: The Secretary of State is right to draw attention to the increasingly alarming reports of rising food prices and the resulting food shortages. At yesterday's summit in Geneva, it was reported that the emergency appeal for assistance had reached barely half its target. I acknowledge the Government's contribution, but the Secretary of State spoke of calls for international co-ordination. What tangible steps are our European partners and the G8 countries taking in response to that appeal, and is the British Government's contribution a fixed financial amount or will it be used to buy a particular quality of food supplies?

Douglas Alexander: We do not tend to provide food aid in the same way as the United States Government, who purchase in bulk and then transfer food. We provide resources that are available to be used in-country, often for local sourcing. I should be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman listing the countries in which the money—approximately £30 million, or $60 million—to support the World Food Programme's efforts to raise, I believe, $500 million is being used. The United States has made a significant contribution to that appeal as well.
	We will continue to discuss this issue with our European partners. I strongly welcome yesterday's statement by Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Secretary-General, about the need for a co-ordinated response. I am also encouraged by the response from the Bretton Woods institutions—the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank—to the letter that our Prime Minister issued ahead of the spring meetings, arguing for exactly that focus at the G8 meeting that will take place in Japan in July.

Andrew Mitchell: Much of what the Secretary of State has announced about the food crisis is welcome, but is he not somewhat embarrassed by the finding of a report produced by his own Department last year that Ministers have failed to support agriculture in the developing world? Have not rising food prices been met by alarming ministerial complacency?

Douglas Alexander: I thought it would not take the Conservatives long to blame the Department for the global phenomenon of rising food prices. As I said, only last week I was able to announce the investment of £400 million in agricultural research. We have been a major funder of such research over a number of years. The Department has expertise in the shape of, for instance, livelihoods advisers. However, it is right to recognise the challenge presented by the need to raise levels of productivity in a range of countries, and we are working with international partners to achieve that goal.

Andrew Mitchell: But this is the Department for International Development's own report, and it says that direct spending on agriculture by the Department has halved over the past 10 years. Therefore, do we not now need Ministers to bring forward plans to bind together Government, business and scientific research in a new global partnership for agriculture similar to the one that delivered the green revolution in Asia in the 1960s?

Douglas Alexander: DFID spends about £120 million a year on agriculture. We have increased to about £55 million a year our financing for safety nets programmes in Bangladesh and many African countries, which support the poorest farmers and their families in those countries, and we have increased spending on rural infrastructure. Last year, we spent £34 million to reduce the cost of transportation in Africa. The emphasis that I have placed within the Department on growth in Africa naturally and inevitably means a focus on agriculture given the role of smallholder agriculture in Africa. It is right to recognise that we need to work with international partners on agricultural productivity, and we have done that and will continue to do so. It is also right to recognise that we have in recent days made a sizeable contribution to agricultural research.

Gender Equality

Helen Southworth: What steps his Department has taken to promote gender equality in access to education in developing countries.

Gillian Merron: The UK Government have committed £8.5 billion for education in developing countries over the 10 years to 2015. We support education plans, policies and programmes that ensure that girls as well as boys benefit in developing countries.

Helen Southworth: When we educate a girl, we also improve the life chances of a future family. In particular, there is a direct link between educating girls and reductions in maternal and infant mortality, but change is not happening fast enough. Will the Government therefore take vigorous steps to increase their efforts at every level, including with other Governments, to ensure that every girl has access to a classroom?

Gillian Merron: What my hon. Friend says is right. Educating girls is one of the best investments that a country can make to further its social and economic development and to improve health. We know that women who have been to school have fewer children, which reduces the risks to them of childbirth and makes it more likely that they will be able to access the care that they need. In addition, their children are healthier; for example, they are 50 per cent. more likely to be immunised. I can therefore confirm to my hon. Friend that although we are making very good progress in getting girls into school, we will be accelerating that work through the call to action and the United Nations-hosted meeting in September. Indeed, our own work through 10-year education plans is bearing fruit.

Gary Streeter: I welcome the Minister's response on this important subject, but is it not also the case that girls who are educated for seven years or more are much more likely to be empowered to reduce the risk of HIV/AIDS in their own lives and in their family? Therefore, if we are to tackle that terrible global disease, is not empowering young women by educating them one of our highest priorities? I commend what the Minister has already said and done, but will she go even further and do even more?

Gillian Merron: I welcome that commendation from the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for his recognition of the work that the Government and others have done in promoting education. Education has been described to me as a social vaccine against HIV and AIDS, and I concur. Girls who stay in school are much more likely to know key prevention techniques and to persuade their partners to use them, and are less likely to become HIV-positive. The figures speak for themselves. In Swaziland, two thirds of teenage girls in school are free from HIV, whereas two thirds of girls out of school have HIV. Such figures concentrate our minds.

Judy Mallaber: Over the Easter recess, I met two teenage girls in Goma who are desperate to resume their education but cannot leave their camp for fear of being attacked or raped by rebel soldiers or the army. Will the Minister urge the Secretary of State in his forthcoming visit to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda to press both Governments to do all they can to uphold the recent peace accords, in order to bring peace to eastern Congo and to allow those girls to resume their education?

Gillian Merron: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take steps in that regard. It is, indeed, the case that one of the reasons why girls do not go to school in the numbers that they should is that schools are not necessarily the safest places. Therefore, in addition to my hon. Friend's points, I would emphasise the work that we are doing in respect of safer and accessible transport, the provision of separate toilets, teacher training, and work to reduce violence against women in their own homes.

James Gray: I was lucky enough to visit a couple of DFID-funded projects in Nepal when I was there over the Easter recess to monitor the elections. People are working very hard to get more women into the education system, and into jobs and work. I was concerned by the incoming Maoist Government, who were saying that they did not want what they see as "new imperialism" from the west, in regard to both that area and the Gurkhas. Will the Minister tell us what discussions she has had with the Maoists in Nepal about continuing and expanding these particular projects?

Gillian Merron: The hon. Gentleman will be glad to learn that the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Malik), will be visiting Nepal in the near future. I will raise the hon. Gentleman's comments with the Foreign Secretary.

HIV/AIDS

Graham Allen: What progress has been made in halting and reversing the spread of HIV and AIDS globally by 2015 in accordance with millennium development goal 7.

Gareth Thomas: Progress is being made in the international effort to tackle HIV and AIDS. There has, for example, been a significant scaling up in the level of financial assistance to tackle the epidemic, and the number of people receiving antiretroviral treatment in poor countries has risen from 400,000 to more than 2 million. There is, however, a lot more to do.

Graham Allen: Will the Minister take this opportunity to distance himself from the more weird and wacky groups that are suggesting that abstinence is the only way to combat HIV/AIDS in parts of the world? Will he also take the opportunity to tell the House that as many moneys will go via voluntary organisations and non-governmental organisations as will go through some of the dubious central Governments who operate in the areas most afflicted by HIV/AIDS?

Gareth Thomas: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we do not support abstinence-only programmes for HIV prevention, because none of the available evidence suggests that such programmes are an effective strategy for HIV prevention. He raised a point about the valuable contribution that voluntary sector organisations make. I have had the privilege of seeing some of the work that Christian Aid supports in southern Africa, so I take his point about the need for us to continue to work with the voluntary sector. I hope that he will recognise that where we can have confidence in the commitment of Governments to preventing HIV and AIDS, we should continue to help them scale up their ability to tackle AIDS in their countries.

Mark Lancaster: Will the Department's forthcoming AIDS strategy continue to contain a dedicated funding target for AIDS, and will a percentage of that funding be allocated to supporting vulnerable children and orphans, as happens today?

Gareth Thomas: The reason why the strategy is forthcoming is that there is still work to do on its preparation, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a preview of what it will contain. One of the reasons why we included specific targets when we published our previous AIDS strategy in July 2004 was to generate significant new political momentum behind the effort to fight AIDS in general and the AIDS orphans crisis. I hope that he will recognise, from the research that he has done, that political momentum behind the fight against AIDS has increased significantly and that much greater effort is being put into tackling the specific problems faced by AIDS orphans.

Russell Brown: Although it is recognised that there are many health-related problems in the developing world, does my hon. Friend agree that when money is specifically targeted at preventing HIV/AIDS and reversing that trend in that area, it should be spent on tackling HIV/AIDS and not on other health-related issues?

Gareth Thomas: We need to do both. We must ensure not only that we continue to help tackle the HIV/AIDS epidemic, but, as the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth) indicated, that we do more to tackle a range of other health conditions. We cannot fight AIDS without more health workers—more doctors and more nurses—in-country, and we cannot tackle infant and child mortality without there being more health workers in place. We need to do more to tackle the specific problems associated with HIV/AIDS, but we must also ensure that our response to HIV/AIDS helps to tackle those broader health questions.

Gregory Campbell: Does the Minister accept that on the continent of Africa where HIV/AIDS is a particularly acute problem, as well as education, the other key area is the elimination of corruption, so that the resources deployed can reach those at risk in certain nation states?

Gareth Thomas: We have had many exchanges in the House about the difficulties that corruption causes for Governments who want to help the poorest people in their countries. That is why we have a considerable number of safeguards to help to ensure that our money is spent effectively and goes where it is needed, and to help developing countries to build up their own defences against corruption. I agree that we need to continue to do more in that area.
	The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that we must do more to promote education, especially girls' education and access to primary education more generally. That is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have made the commitment to an £8.5 billion investment over the next 10 years from the UK to seek to achieve those objectives.

Saudi Arabia

Linda Riordan: What discussions he has had with the Foreign Secretary on human rights in Saudi Arabia.

Douglas Alexander: Human rights are a key issue for UK Ministers and are among the many issues that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I discuss on a regular basis. While we welcome efforts to address human rights in Saudi Arabia, the UK Government continue to raise concerns about the human rights situation and to work closely with the Saudi Government to encourage reform.

Linda Riordan: The oppression of women is a matter of daily life and capital and corporal punishment are part of the Saudis' abuses of human rights. Can the Minister assure me that he will work with colleagues in the Foreign Office to ensure that the Saudi regime is not allowed to continue those practices, which are condemned by the rest of the world?

Douglas Alexander: I can give the assurance to my hon. Friend that we continue to press Saudi Arabia to adopt the recommendations of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, and in 2007, when we hosted the two kingdoms dialogue at Lancaster house, discussions included specific measures in the area of women's rights.

Daniel Kawczynski: As chairman of the all-party group on Saudi Arabia, I can tell the Minister that, following my discussions with the Foreign Secretary this week, he was pleased—following his visit to that country—with the tremendous advances on human rights. Will the Minister join me in congratulating King Abdullah and his Government on the advances that they are making in improving human rights?

Douglas Alexander: Of course we welcome any progress that is made on human rights. I know that a productive and effective meeting took place in Riyadh between the Foreign Secretary and the Government of Saudi Arabia.

Economic Partnership Agreements

Jo Swinson: If he will make a statement on the implementation of economic partnership agreements.

Gareth Thomas: We anticipate that the economic partnership agreements that have been agreed with 35 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries will be signed formally over the next 18 months. We will provide aid for trade support to help those ACP countries implement and benefit from the new opportunities provided by EPAs.

Jo Swinson: The Prime Minister has said that poor countries must be allowed the flexibility to decide, plan and sequence their own trade reforms. However, an analysis last week by Oxfam showed that the interim economic partnership agreements that were hastily concluded in December could mean that Africa loses $360 million each year in tariff cuts. Does the Minister think that an independent evaluation of the EPAs should be made with an eye to revisiting problem areas before the deals are finally signed?

Gareth Thomas: I was at a United Nations Conference on Trade and Development meeting in Ghana last week and had the opportunity to discuss the interim EPAs that have been initialled by many of the non-least developed countries, and also to discuss EPAs with LDCs. There was significant support from several of those countries for the interim EPAs. The hon. Lady is right to note that some countries have highlighted one or two issues, and we want the Commission to continue to show flexibility in responding to those concerns. We need to recognise that the duty and quota-free access offer that the Commission has made to non-LDCs is a significant step forward and that many of the ACP countries, such as Botswana and some Caribbean countries, have been warmly supportive of the efforts that the Commission has made to help them with better trading opportunities in the European Union.

Hugh Bayley: What are the Government doing to help African countries to trade with one another by reducing the tariffs that they impose on one another and strengthening the infrastructure to allow transport links from one African country to another?

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the importance of regional integration. We continue to highlight that as one of the potential benefits of moving from interim economic partnership agreements to full regional economic partnership agreements. As I said in my previous answer, we continue to encourage the Commission to show additional flexibility so that we can move from the interim EPAs that have been signed with individual countries to full regional EPAs over the coming months.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I start Prime Minister's Question Time, may I point out that it is only right and fitting that hon. Members should be heard when they are putting questions? Sustained shouting looks bad and it is not good for the reputation of the House. I have already had a quiet word with Mr. Campbell.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Brian Jenkins: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 30 April.

Gordon Brown: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Brian Jenkins: The Prime Minister is well aware that the global economic turn-down is causing concern to many in our country. Will he assure me today that his top priority will be the British economy, with stability and high employment at its core? Will he assure me that he will never make the statement that 3 million unemployed is a price worth paying?

Gordon Brown: I will never make that statement. It is because of our policies that there are 3 million more people in work than ever before, that we have more vacancies and that unemployment is at its lowest for 30 years. I am grateful to be able to say that in my hon. Friend's constituency, overall unemployment has fallen 42 per cent. since 1997. The choice in future will be between a Conservative party that caused 3 million unemployed and was responsible for two of the worst recessions in history, and a Labour Government who are on the side of home owners facing difficulties and those facing high fuel prices—a Labour Government who have never seen repossessions reach the level that they were at under the Conservatives. We will continue to fight for every job in this country.

David Cameron: The planted questions get tougher and tougher.
	As the Prime Minister knows, there is only one thing more uncomfortable than a U-turn, and that is making a U-turn after repeated protestations that one will not make a U-turn. May I offer him an opportunity to retract what he said last week and to admit that he will have to make major concessions on his proposals to extend detention without charge to 42 days?

Gordon Brown: No. We are going ahead with our proposal and we will put it to the House of Commons. The Opposition parties agree with us in principle that there will be terrorism cases where we will need more than 28 days to interview witnesses. The Opposition agree with us that there are certain emergency conditions in which that will be required, and so do the Liberal party and Liberty. The question is whether we have put in place the civil liberties protections that are necessary. We have done that, and that is why we will go ahead with putting the proposal to the House. The Conservative party should support it.

David Cameron: What we object to is new legislation that threatens civil liberties, that is not necessary and that could make the situation worse. Will the Prime Minister listen to his own Director of Public Prosecutions, who said:
	"we do not perceive any need for the period of 28 days to be increased" ——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 53, Q136.]
	and
	"our experience is that we have managed comfortably with 28 days"? ——[Official Report, Counter-Terrorism Public Bill Committee, 22 April 2008; c. 58, Q150.]
	He is the man responsible for prosecuting and convicting terrorists. Why will the Prime Minister not listen to him?

Gordon Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman listen to the police, who have said that they might need the power beyond 28 days? Will he also listen to the independent reviewer, Lord Carlile, who gave evidence only a few days ago about the need for the extra power? Will he not recognise that if we were to have to come to the House in a period of emergency and ask for the extra powers, that would not be the way to go because it would give oxygen to terrorism? It is better to take pre-emptive action now. I think that the Conservative party should be ashamed of itself for not supporting the legislation.

David Cameron: It is not just the DPP who opposes the proposal. The former Attorney-General and Lord Chancellor do too, and the man who was chief inspector of constabulary says that it is wrong. We now know what Labour MPs think about it, as we have been sent a report about that from the Labour Whips' Office. Only this Government could manage to send it across to us—it brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "usual channels". One Minister says that the 42-day limit has been "plucked from thin air." Another MP says that he
	"could be persuaded to stay away"—
	that is straight from the Prime Minister's book of courage—but my favourite is from the hon. Member for Ealing, who sums up the Labour party's mood when he says that he "will support" it but thinks that it is "barmy." Why does the Prime Minister think that he cannot persuade his own MPs?

Gordon Brown: Is it not remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman will never address the substantial issue? The substantial issue for our country is whether it is right to have the power in law that it may be necessary for the police to go beyond 28 days. The substantial issue is whether, when facing a major terrorist incident, Ministers should have to come before the House and ask for that extra power, when we could take it in a precautionary way.
	I believe that we have dealt with the civil liberties arguments on this issue. We have accepted the requirement that the Home Secretary must come to the House if an order is needed in any particular case. We have given new powers to the independent reviewer, so that he can adjudicate the case. We have given new powers to the judiciary, so that every seven days the person involved must come before the judiciary before the detention is confirmed. I believe that we are protecting the country's civil liberties and that the Conservative party is making a mistake if it believes that we should not have this precautionary legislation, in circumstances where sophisticated investigations that go right across the world, involving mobile phones, e-mails and computers, mean that the amount of police work and time needed to investigate cases is a great deal higher. I believe that the Conservatives would be making a mistake if they opposed this legislation.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister is wrong. We have addressed the substantive issues. We said, "Use intercept evidence in terror trials," and he is beginning to take up that proposal. We said, "Question suspects after charge," and that is in the Counter-Terrorism Bill. We said, "Let's have a proper border police force," and the Prime Minister got the "border" bit, but does not seem to understand the "police" bit. The Prime Minister reels off the changes that he has made, but he has not convinced anybody. The former Attorney-General has said that
	"not only is it wrong in principle but...also...counter-productive because it can lead to the risk that part of our community... sees this as an attack on them".
	How far is he prepared to take this battle with his party? Will the vote be an issue of confidence for his Government?

Gordon Brown: We will put our proposal before the House. It will be one that I believe Conservative and Liberal Members should also think carefully about. If the right hon. Gentleman had to examine the cases for terrorist asset freezes, as I did when I was Chancellor, or if he had to examine the cases that come before the police, he would know the sophistication of the investigations that are now required. They look internationally at a range of matters, including computer documents and e-mails, and that means that there will come a time when it is difficult for the police to do a sophisticated investigation in 28 days.
	If I may say so, we as a House should take the precautionary position and adopt the proposed extra power. It cannot be triggered without the Home Secretary coming back again to the House to ask for it. That means that we vote in principle for a 42-days limit, but at the same time say that the Home Secretary must come before the House. I believe that the issue for the House was whether people would be subject to arbitrary detention. We have taken all the precautions necessary against arbitrary detention. We should now go ahead with this measure, and the Conservative party should support it.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister talks about the sophistication of the prosecutions, but who knows more about that—the Prime Minister, or the Director of Public Prosecutions? The DPP is the man responsible for trying to convict and imprison the people involved.
	However, the Prime Minister did not answer my question, so let me ask him again. He tells us how much this matters and that he will not make any more concessions, so is this an issue of confidence?

Gordon Brown: We will put this before the House. If I may say so, the head of the Metropolitan police also has some idea of the sophisticated investigations involved. The independent reviewer has been examining all the cases and he is convinced of the need to go beyond 28 days. The Home Affairs Committee looked at the matter and said that there may be a case for going beyond 28 days. Equally, at the same time, the Conservative party, Liberty and the Liberal party have agreed that there might be a case, and they want to trigger the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. If there is a case that some instances will involve going beyond 28 days, surely the right thing for a Government to do is to respect the civil liberties of the individual by avoiding arbitrary treatment, but to take the power that could be triggered again only by the Home Secretary coming before the House. That is the right and responsible way to proceed. We are talking about the security of every citizen in this country.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister will not answer the question about a vote of confidence, so I think that everyone knows what is going to happen: another rebellion, another backdown, another U-turn, and the collapse of stout party. Is not the truth of the 42 days provision exactly the same as the fiasco of the 10p tax rate? He is pushing this not because it is right, but because it is part of a political calculation. With the 10p tax rate, it was about trying to pose as a tax cutter. This time, it is about trying to pose as being tough on terror. Everybody knows what is happening. Today, apparently, he is admitting mistakes. Why does he not admit the biggest mistake of all: that he puts political calculation and self-interest— [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

David Cameron: The Prime Minister is putting political calculation and self-interest ahead of the right decisions and the national interest.

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman never addresses the substance of the question. This is the man who wants to be both tough on crime and hug-a-hoodie at the same time. This is the man for whom political calculation meant that he cycled to work but, at the same time, had a chauffeur-driven car coming behind. This is the man who is a shallow salesman and never addresses the substance of the issue. The important substance of this issue is how we protect the people of this country against terrorism. That is about more than trading a few quotes in the House of Commons. It is about looking at the evidence before us, and the evidence before us is that we will need 42 days. I urge the Conservative party to think again.

Stephen Pound: May I point out that the great and noble borough of Ealing is actually represented by three Labour Members, none of whom made the statement attributed to one of them? However, may I say that the Leader of the Opposition is doing a simply marvellous job of auditioning for the sadly vacant chair of "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue"?
	Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be the height of irresponsibility for any candidate standing for the mayoralty of London to talk about slashing the Metropolitan police—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not invite the Prime Minister to answer that one.

Nicholas Clegg: If someone — [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Remember what I have said to the House. It is unfair to the right hon. Gentleman, and he should be able to put his two questions.

Nicholas Clegg: It is obvious why someone who is a low earner in Britain today would not support the Conservatives tomorrow. However, after doubling the tax rate for the poor, leaving more than 4.5 million people in fuel poverty and closing thousands of post offices, can the Prime Minister explain why any low earner should support his Government?

Gordon Brown: Because we have taken a million pensioners out of poverty. Because we are on the road to taking a million children out of poverty. Because we introduced the new deal to get people in work—opposed by the Liberal party. Because we have introduced child tax credits and raised child benefit, and child tax credits were opposed by the Liberal party. The reason why people should support Labour is that our policies for social justice are not only taking people out of poverty, but giving people the chance of work.

Nicholas Clegg: The Prime Minister is living in denial. If he wants people to believe that he cares for the poor, he should act as though he does. Is he not ashamed of the "grotesque chaos", to quote Neil Kinnock, of a Labour Government scuttling around the country handing out closure notices to more than 5,000 local post offices? This morning, the Prime Minister said that he wants to be a listening Prime Minister. Let him prove it. Will he stop all further post office closures, right now?

Gordon Brown: Four million fewer people are using our post offices than did so a few years ago. We have put £1.7 billion into helping the post office network. Once again, the Liberal party is proposing spending huge sums of extra money without having any recognisable means of paying for it. That is why the hon. Gentleman's shadow Home Secretary called him "Calamity Clegg".

Madeleine Moon: Gofal, Yellow, Working Links and my local youth offending team are all working hard to place vulnerable youngsters—those with mental health problems, drug and alcohol problems and low educational attainment—in work. Can I give them an assurance that despite the turn-down in the economy, work will still be available for those vulnerable youngsters, and that there is potential for their future?

Gordon Brown: I had the privilege of meeting young people from my hon. Friend's constituency to talk about the challenges that they face in creating and getting jobs, and about the youth facilities in the area. The fact is that in Wales, employment is up 131,000 since 1997. We have helped 120,000 people through the new deal, and we continue to create jobs for young people in Wales. That would not have happened if we had taken the Conservative party's advice and abolished the new deal. We will create jobs; the Conservatives would create unemployment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Public Accounts Committee has branded the Olympic budgeting process incompetent, yet Londoners are being forced to pick up the bills. Who has deceived them—the Government, the Mayor, or both?

Gordon Brown: First, we should be proud that the Olympics are coming to London. This gives me the chance to congratulate the Mayor of London on having made sure that the Olympics will come to London. The hon. Gentleman will know that a national contribution to the Olympics is also being made by the Exchequer. I believe that holding the Olympics in London will be a great boost, not just to London but to the whole of the British economy.

Paddy Tipping: After years of discussion, Parliament decided that fox hunting should be banned. Is not the priority now to ensure that the legislation is implemented effectively, and not to promise that it will be repealed at some date in the future?

Gordon Brown: I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has said:
	"We would let the House of Commons have a free vote...and...if there was a vote to get rid of the ban...there would be a government bill in government time."
	I believe that there is a settled view among the public on the matter and that it would be better if all parties in the House recognised the previous vote of the House of Commons on the issue.

Mark Harper: On "The Politics Show West" on Sunday, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), whose question is, I note, next on the Order Paper, said of the Prime Minister:
	"He was never my choice. I made it quite clear we should have looked to miss a generation."
	He went on to say: "Gordon is a tragedy". On Friday, after the local elections, when the Prime Minister carries out an emergency reshuffle, should the hon. Member for Stroud wait by his telephone?

Gordon Brown: This Government, in the past 11 years, have created more jobs than any other for the people of this country. We have cut poverty, we have doubled investment in the health service and we have improved investment in education. The hon. Gentleman should be congratulating us on what we have done, not criticising us.

David Drew: And now we get to some real politics.May I thank my right hon. Friend for the initiative that he has taken on Darfur, having called a conference in London? I believe that yesterday, he met the Sudanese Foreign Minister and the special adviser to the President of Sudan. I had the opportunity to meet those gentlemen on Monday. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what progress is being made on the conference, and in particular what opportunities are being pursued to make sure that the rebel groups, and particularly the Arab militias, are willing to come to the conference?

Gordon Brown: Our aim is not just to get the rebel parties together, but to get the Government of Sudan to be part of the discussion process. When I spoke to the Sudanese Foreign Minister yesterday, I pressed him about the need for talks to start as soon as possible. I believe that if talks started, we could achieve a ceasefire and at the same time get to the process of reaching a political settlement. The key thing is to get the talks started. That is why approaches have been made to the rebel groups, why the United Nations Secretary-General is involved, why we have offered London as a possible centre for such talks, and why I am hopeful that if we can move matters forward in the next few weeks, there is a chance of talks taking place that could bring peace to that troubled area.

Robert Smith: Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking to the House that by the Report stage of the Finance Bill, we will see detailed and concrete proposals on exactly how his Government plan to compensate the 5.3 million low earners who lost out when he doubled the 10p tax rate?

Gordon Brown: The Chancellor has sent a letter to the Treasury Committee Chairman and made it absolutely clear what the Government are ready to do and the action that we are taking to help 60 to 65-year-olds and people who are low paid, and that is what we will do.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: The faith-based sector in my community is doing a fantastic job. Its members administer half my schools, the hospice and our care homes, and they have been involved in wonderful campaigns such as Drop the Debt, but they are very concerned about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. We acknowledge that the Prime Minister has given people like me and those of religious conviction a free vote in the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House. Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing a free vote when the Bill finally comes before the House?

Gordon Brown: I have made it clear that there will be a free vote for Labour Members on provisions relating to saviour siblings, mixed embryos and the need for a father or supportive parenting, because this is the first time that those ethical issues have been debated on the Floor of the House of Commons. The letter that I sent to MPs set out the reasons why we should do that. It is the right way of proceeding on an important Bill. We do not want to lose the benefits of research that is available to help people, but at the same time we wish to acknowledge that there are new ethical issues before the House that should be debated on a free vote of the House.

Peter Robinson: Does the Prime Minister recall, when he was Chancellor, appointing Sir David Varney to carry out a review of the Northern Ireland economy? Sir David's second report is due out later today. Will the Prime Minister ensure that the Government's response to that report is issued before the Northern Ireland-United States investment conference, and will he ensure that part of the Government's response to that report deals with the commitment made by his predecessor five years ago in the joint declaration that they would hand over to the Northern Ireland Executive many of the military and police bases that are now redundant, to enhance the assets that the Executive would have?

Gordon Brown: Let me first, on behalf of the whole House, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on becoming the leader of his party. I wish him well in the task ahead as we move forward with the devolution proposals for Northern Ireland. He is right: we have talked on a number of occasions about the Varney report and what it can do to bring new investment for Northern Ireland. The investment conference, which will include representation from America, will take place next week and I look forward to meeting him and the American delegation there. The Varney report which is published today will offer a number of proposals on how we can increase the attractiveness of Northern Ireland for inward investment. Some of that is in the incentives for innovation that should be available for companies coming into Northern Ireland or developing there. Some of it is in the area of skills, where we ought to be able to increase and build on the good education offered in Northern Ireland. I look forward to talking to the hon. Gentleman about that and the military bases when we have a chance to meet soon.

Chris Mole: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate the ward deep cleaning team, who won team of the year at the staff awards at the Ipswich hospital last Thursday evening, on their success and on the 68 per cent. reduction in the number of MRSA cases that has been achieved in the past two years? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the colleagues who nominated them and patients would regard that initiative and others from my right hon. Friend, such as extended GP opening hours, as anything other than a gimmick?

Gordon Brown: The deep clean of our hospitals and the doubling of the number of matrons to make sure that all hospital wards are clean are a very important aspect of making the health service better in the future. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating those in his constituency and the hospital, who have done so much good work to make their hospital a better place.
	It is also true that GP access is incredibly important to every citizen in this country. That is why it is regrettable that the Conservative spokesman has said that he is against the progress on GP access that has been made, and that he would hand back to GPs the power to decide whether there was access for their patients. That would be a retrograde step.

Douglas Carswell: The Prime Minister claims that he had no knowledge of the dodgy loans used to fund the 2005 election campaign, which he ran. Lord Levy has revealed that the Prime Minister knew everything. Is Lord Levy lying?

Gordon Brown: I knew nothing of these loans.

Stephen Hepburn: The Prime Minister will be aware that European workers receive twice as many bank holidays as British workers. Is he going to give UK workers one extra bank holiday?

Gordon Brown: We are consulting on the nature of citizenship, and one part of the consultation is on potential bank holidays. I have to say also that as a result of the changes that we have made, it will be the legal entitlement of every worker, from 1 April 2009, that statutory paid leave be raised from 24 days to 28 days. That is because of the actions of a Labour Government.

James Clappison: Is the Prime Minister aware that next week marks the sixth anniversary of the Potters Bar rail crash, yet still no public inquiry or inquest has been held? Is that not most regrettable?

Gordon Brown: We are determined to ensure the safety of passengers on the railways, and I will look into what the hon. Gentleman has said. But I believe that we are taking all the precautions necessary to ensure that our railways are safe.

Don Touhig: Wales is a much more prosperous country now than it was 10 years ago, thanks to the policies of this Government. Does my right hon. Friend share my despair that the Welsh people will be betrayed once again by the nationalists, who will do a deal to put the Tories into government, as they put Thatcher into government? Does he agree that a vote for the nationalists tomorrow is a vote for the Tories?

Gordon Brown: There are 131,000 more people in work in Wales as a result of a Labour Government. The only way of safeguarding jobs and prosperity in Wales is to support the Labour party.

Mark Pritchard: Further to the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) about the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, will the Prime Minister confirm whether there will be a free vote on Third Reading?

Gordon Brown: That is not the intention. If I may say so, for the legislation passed under the Conservative Government, there was a whipped vote on Third Reading.

John Robertson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that for a number of years I have been trying to get my Employment Retention Bill through Parliament. Unfortunately, on Friday the Conservatives objected to my Bill once again. Will he use his high office to talk to the Department for Work and Pensions and try to get the Bill through, to make sure that people who are disabled during employment will receive employment and be able to contribute to the rest of this nation?

Gordon Brown: I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing a Bill for the employment of the disabled. I also congratulate him on keeping alive the very important idea that every disabled person should have the chance to get employment opportunities in our country. We recognise the importance of helping disabled people into work, we welcome my hon. Friend's concern and we share his aims and determination to do more. The Government launched the cross-party independent living strategy in March 2008, and we will move forward on that. I will be very happy to talk with my hon. Friend about how we can move forward with his proposals, including within the Disability Discrimination Act 2005.

Bill Wiggin: While the Prime Minister is on the subject of disabled people, may I ask whether he is aware that Labour's attack on vulnerable people has been extended to disabled anglers? They have seen the cost of their fishing licence go up by 37 per cent., as opposed to 2 per cent. for able-bodied people—if, that is, they can find a post office from which to buy one

Gordon Brown: I will look at the facts that the hon. Gentleman brings before us and see what has happened to bring that about. However, I have to say to him that this Government have invested in rural communities, and on post offices we are making £1.7 billion available.

Virendra Sharma: Given that crime in London has fallen in recent years, does my right hon. Friend think that it is now time to cut neighbourhood policing teams?

Gordon Brown: Neighbourhood policing has been so successful in London that it is now used in all parts of England. The reason that crime has come down is that there is a visible police presence in these areas and local people are in touch with their local police forces. That is why, under the current Mayor of London, crime has fallen by 15 per cent. and there are 6,000 more police officers and 4,000 more community support officers. The one thing that would put the policing of London at risk is the election of a Conservative Mayor.

Points of Order

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, of which I have given you and the Minister for Borders and Immigration prior notice. My complaint is that I have been pursuing the case of a constituent since December, and in this particular case, when my interest had been established for a long time, a Labour peer, the noble Lord Goldsmith, was informed of the outcome of the constituent's tragic case and I was not. We jealously guard each other's rights to represent the interests of our constituents in this House, Mr. Speaker, and I am asking you to support my view that the example of the handling of this case by the Home Office would, if repeated more widely, represent a significant and detrimental change to way that we, as individual Members of Parliament, hold Ministers to account for our constituents.

Mr. Speaker: I have to be careful that I do not get involved in this matter because I do not know all the details. Sometimes correspondence can go to someone in good faith and the Department concerned is not always seeking to give offence to hon. Members. I think that the best reply that I can give the hon. Gentleman is that he has put his concerns on record, and the appropriate Department and Minister will take note of his deep concerns. [Hon. Members: "Where is the Minister?"] I do not know where the Minister is.

Nick Herbert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the last morning of every month, the Ministry of Justice publishes details of how many prisoners have been released early during the previous month. This morning, the Ministry of Justice published every set of data scheduled to be released except the early release figures. Given that those figures were due to show that almost 25,000 prisoners, and more than 4,000 violent prisoners, have been released early on to our streets, will you invite the Justice Secretary to reassure the House that these figures will be published immediately and that this was not a shabby attempt to bury bad news on the eve of the local elections?

Jack Straw: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.  [ Interruption. ] Order. It is up to Ministers what they publish; it is not a matter for the Chair.

Jack Straw: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not going to invite the right hon. Gentleman to speak— [ Interruption. ] Order. We have to be careful how we use points of order. I tell the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) that it may be a point that he wants to raise with the Minister but it is not a point of order, and I will not allow the matter to continue.  [ Interruption. ] Order. Hon. Members are getting into a habit of raising points of order about what Ministers did and failed to do. When a point of order is made, it is a matter for me how I handle it. That is the matter finished. It was not a point of order that the hon. Gentleman raised.

New Writ (Crewe and Nantwich)

Mr. Speaker: We now have proceedings on the motion for the writ moved earlier by the Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), and objected to. I should tell the House that this is treated as a matter of privilege.
	 Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county constituency of Crewe and Nantwich in the room of Gwyneth Patricia Dunwoody, deceased.— [Mr. Hoon.]

Nicholas Winterton: I rise with sadness and regret to oppose the issuing of the writ for the county constituency of Crewe and Nantwich in Cheshire. In doing so, may I apologise to the Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon)? I do not wish in any way to frustrate the Government in what they are seeking to do.
	As the longest-serving Member in the county of Cheshire, and a close friend of the late Mrs. Dunwoody—I worked with her on many issues in Cheshire over many years—I believe that I represent a view held fairly strongly across the House. It appears to me and many others that the issuing of the writ before the funeral of Mrs. Dunwoody means that this matter is being pursued with unseemly haste.
	As you know, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody was hugely respected for what she did in this place. She was a robust, independent socialist who was never frightened to express her view or to stand up for what she believed to be right. She was equally committed to and respected in her constituency and the county of Cheshire as a whole. I merely wish to represent to this House my concern that the writ has been issued before Mrs. Dunwoody's funeral, next Thursday in St. Margaret's church here in Westminster, which I shall attend. I wish to register that point. I do not intend to vote against the issuing of the writ, and I hope that Members of the House will not do so.

Simon Hughes: Ever since I have been here, it has been the tradition that when a colleague dies the party of that colleague moves the writ for the by-election or seeks to persuade Parliament to do so. That has a logic to it, and it is a logic from which my colleagues and I do not dissent. Like the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), none of us has fully taken in or recovered from the fact that only a couple of weeks ago Gwyneth Dunwoody was here, as robust as ever, and now she is not with us any more.
	Without seeking to persuade my colleagues to oppose the decision we are about to take, I would like to register my view that we appear to be going down a road of having by-elections much more speedily after deaths of colleagues. There ought to be a convention at least that the funeral takes place first, and clearly there may be a need for talks between the parties to ensure that we return to a slightly more decent, respectful and honourable process. Of course, there is the question of not wanting to leave a constituency unrepresented for too long, but there are practical issues as well as ones of principle. If a by-election is called quickly, although there is no doubt that we will all— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman speak.  [ Interruption. ] Order. Mr. Brennan, please allow the hon. Gentleman to speak.

Simon Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If there is a by-election, we will, of course, all engage in it and fight a robust campaign. Inevitably, that will be the case. However, it is not good to have hasty by-elections, even in practical terms. It reduces the opportunity for people to consider whether they wish to be candidates, and for their parties to consider that matter. It reduces the opportunity for people to apply for postal votes so that they can take part in the process, and it reduces people's ability to take part in the debate about the politics of the constituency and the country.
	I hope that we can re-examine the process for and the speed of calling by-elections. I believe that the public would share the view of the hon. Member for Macclesfield that a little more caution and a little less haste is appropriate. However, the Government have made the decision, and so they must have their way and live with the consequences.

Ann Winterton: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) as a fellow Cheshire Member of Parliament. I know that the sentiments he expressed will be shared by other Cheshire colleagues and hon. Members of all parties.
	In almost 25 years, I have never known a writ be moved before a colleague's funeral. I was dismayed at the discourtesy and insensitivity afforded to Mrs. Dunwoody's family and her constituency.
	When boundary changes took place in 1983, I inherited part of Gwyneth's former constituency—

John Spellar: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is not giving way.

Ann Winterton: I inherited part of Gwyneth Dunwoody's constituency and I know the high esteem in which she was and continues to be held by her former constituents. Gwyneth Dunwoody was a neighbour, a redoubtable woman and a character. She did not deserve such treatment.

John Spellar: I invited the hon. Lady to give way. She claimed to speak on behalf of the family and said that disrespect had been shown to them. Has she asked the family whether that was their view?

Mr. Speaker: I call the Leader of the House.

Harriet Harman: I wish to raise two points in response to those that have been made. The first is about the wishes of the family and the second is about the conventions of the House.
	I shall read to the House a statement from the family in respect of the late Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody. They said:
	"We fully support the decision to begin the process of electing a new MP for Crewe and Nantwich. Our mother proudly represented this constituency for 34 years, and would not want to see local people go without an MP. She worked tirelessly for local people and recognised there was always more to do. She would want that job of work to continue, as quickly as possible."
	It is a long-standing convention of the House that, when a party loses a member, it decides when to move the writ, which triggers the process that leads to the ensuing by-election.
	Crewe and Nantwich has had a doughty advocate for 34 years and it needs a new Member of Parliament. I therefore invite the House to support the motion.
	 Question put and agreed to.

Citizens' Initiative

Douglas Carswell: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit members of the public to initiate legislation; and for connected purposes.
	Under the Bill, citizens could trigger debates and votes in Parliament on topics of their choice. Part of the House's legislative agenda would be determined directly by the ordinary citizen, not just MPs and officials. Bills would be introduced on things that mattered to the people, not merely those that excite politicians.
	The Bill is sponsored by Members from across the political spectrum, united in wanting a new kind of progressive politics. We most certainly do need a new form of politics. There is a growing problem with the old Westminster politics. There is a gaping gulf between the political classes in SW1 and the country beyond. My Bill would ensure that Westminster was made more directly accountable to those whom we are supposed to serve. In place of the gentlemen's club rules that are used to determine what is on the legislature's agenda, the people would also get to have a say.
	To initiate a law, a citizen would submit a written proposal to the Clerk in the Table Office. Just as in New Zealand, the Table Office Clerk could determine the precise wording and rule frivolous or fantastic proposals out of order. Proposals would be out of order if, in the opinion of the Clerk and the Speaker, a similar proposal had been put forward within five years. Once a proposal had been approved by the Table Office, citizens would have 12 months to collect signatures.
	In New Zealand, 10 per cent. of voters need to sign up to trigger an initiative. Many western democracies have a right of initiative, including Austria, Italy, Hungary and Lithuania, yet the threshold in such countries has often been set so high that initiatives are rare. High thresholds mean that the popular initiative plays an integral part in the political process in only the United States and Switzerland.
	Rather than selecting an arbitrary threshold, under my Bill those six proposals with the most signatures would qualify. Ensuring that each proposal was, in effect, in competition with other proposals would have advantages. It would encourage proposals that were, by definition, able to command widespread support and would favour measures that were inclusive and unifying, and progressive and uplifting, over and above what was narrow and sectional.
	The half dozen proposals with the most signatures would then be presented to Parliament during the state opening. Having listed those Bills that the Sir Humphrey Appleby types, the remote officials and even, it has to be said, the occasional Minister wanted, Her Majesty would then read out those Bills that the people wanted on the statue book. And what a Queen's Speech that might be! Perhaps people beyond the Westminster village might want to watch and debate the contents of the Gracious Speech—a speech with purpose, as well as pageantry.
	Every couple of months, the Commons would debate and vote on one of the people's Bills. MPs would not be under any obligation to vote for or against them. Perhaps some MPs might not even bother to turn up at all—it has been known—but no longer could politicians avoid the angry gaze of the electorate. No longer could MPs pretend that they did not have the opportunity to confront those issues that matter to the people.
	It might be that the party Whips would allow free votes on the people's Bills—and good luck to those who did not. Yet with or without a free vote, each MP would find themselves more accountable not to their Whips but to their constituents. No longer mere cheerleaders for the current Government or cheerleaders for the next, MPs would have to heed the voice of the voter.
	My Bill would boost voter turnout, too. Empirical evidence from the US shows that those states with the right of initiative have, on average, 5 per cent. higher turnouts than those states without.
	Would a popular initiative open the floodgates to some wildly illiberal populism? No. Restoring capital punishment is simply not a perennial demand among voters in Switzerland. Giving people responsibility makes them responsible. Even if an angry and, some may say, infantilised electorate initially put forward some radical populism, MPs would of course still have the final say.
	Hon. Members may recall that the great and hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound) once—some might say rather rashly—promised his private Member's Bill slot to Radio 4 listeners. When they promptly suggested a change in the law on self-defence and burglars, he promptly chose not to take up their case. Under my proposal, MPs forced to confront issues that they would rather not face could do likewise, but at least when politicians decided that they were going to ignore the views of the voter, they could not pretend otherwise.
	A right of initiative would strengthen Parliament and revive our much diminished standing. Far from bypassing or marginalising the Commons, my Bill would give this institution a little backbone. We would still be, in Edmund Burke's memorable phrase, a "deliberative assembly"; it is just that those assembled here would deliberate what counted with the country. This House, under Governments of both parties, has grown less effective at holding those who wield Executive power to account. It should not surprise any of us that fewer people bother voting in elections to determine who sits here.
	Designed in the age of steam trains, our parliamentary system evolved in an era when most people lived and worked in the same parish, and sending a representative off to some remote palace by the Thames was how politics had to be done. Three centuries after the Putney debates, in the age of YouTube, leaving things to politicians is no longer the only way in which politics can be done. In the era of Google, politics is not something that we, the people, must elect them, the politicians, to do on our behalf. Politics can belong to the people between elections, and voters can have a direct say over what MPs debate and vote on.
	I conclude with this thought. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the mainstream political debates of the day hinged on questions of economic decentralisation. The big debates were about whether and how to decentralise control of the economy, trade union reform, making the Bank of England independent, privatisation and the big bang in the City. Each of those issues was a step towards decentralising economic control. The new political questions of our age will hinge on decentralising control, not of the economy but of politics and public services. This Bill is a small step towards that overarching aim. I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Douglas Carswell, Mr. Graham Allen, Mr. Mark Field, Greg Clark, Stephen Hammond, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Philip Dunne and Mr. David Gauke.

Citizens' Initiative (Legislation)

Mr. Douglas Carswell accordingly presented a Bill to extend and improve methods of electoral registration: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October, and to be printed [Bill 102].

Orders of the Day

Energy Bill

As amended in the Public Bill  Committee, considered

New Clause 6
	 — 
	Exception for activities carried on partly on land etc

'(1) This Chapter does not apply in relation to—
	(a) the use of a controlled place for the unloading of gas to an installation which is connected with land by a permanent structure providing access at all times and for all purposes;
	(b) the conversion of a natural feature of which part is in a controlled place and part under land, if the operations necessary for the conversion take place wholly or mainly on, over or under land;
	(c) the use of a place for the storage of gas, or the recovery of gas so stored, where—
	(i) the gas was, or is to be, introduced into the store by means of a well on land, and
	(ii) part of the place is a controlled place and part is under land;
	(d) the establishment or maintenance of an installation for the purposes of activities falling within paragraph (a).
	(2) In this section—
	"land" means—
	(a) land in England;(b) land in Wales;(c) land in Scotland landward of the low water mark;
	"well" includes a borehole.'.— [Malcolm Wicks.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

Malcolm Wicks: The purpose of these technical amendments is to prevent gas storage and unloading developments from being subject to double regulation, namely under the planning regime, through town and country planning legislation on the one hand, and under the new regime for offshore gas unloading and storage developments that the Bill introduces on the other. Chapter 2 of part 1 of the Bill provides a new regime to license the unloading and storage of gas in the offshore area, comprising the area within 12 nautical miles of the territorial sea and an area beyond that, extending up to a total distance of 200 nautical miles.
	The measures have been widely welcomed by the industry and received cross-party support in Committee. However, in written submissions and discussions, industry players have sought clarity on the relationship between onshore town and country planning regimes and the licences provided for in this part of the Bill. They are particularly anxious to avoid double regulation in cases in which an onshore development falling within the scope of the town and country planning legislation extends, in part, to the area of the territorial sea, thereby attracting the offshore regulatory regime established in the Bill.
	In response to those concerns, we have tabled a new clause and amendments that are designed to prevent an overlap between those onshore and offshore regimes. The effect of those amendments will be to exempt an onshore gas development from needing an offshore gas licence, even if part of the structure or gas storage area in question extends into the offshore area. Such onshore developments will continue to require consent under town and country planning legislation, but they will not need a licence from my Department as well.

Charles Hendry: I am grateful to the Minister for tabling the amendments. It seems sensible to address this potential loophole now, and we agree that investors, above all, need absolute clarity. We support the proposed changes, but feel that they should be considered against the general concern that not enough is being done to address the issue of storage.
	We all know that about two and a half years ago we nearly ran out of gas. I have teased the Minister before about that because it happened within hours of his saying that we were awash with gas. We are aware of that significant challenge two and a half years ago, but still not enough has been done to address the issue, which should be seen in that context. Much has happened since then, with new pipelines coming into action, new liquefied natural gas facilities being built and the storage facilities at Rough, which were half out of action, now operating fully again.
	The situation is nothing like as tight as it was, but we need a more strategic approach to storage, and the Bill is a missed opportunity in that respect. The Minister should be proposing to the House that he will report to Parliament every year on how much storage he believes we will need to address our energy needs in the medium to long term. If he did that, he would also be able to tell the House what steps were being taken to ensure that that need would be met. I regret that such measures are still missing from the Bill, but we are pleased that the potential loophole that we have discussed is being addressed.

Malcolm Wicks: Let me reply to that point, which featured in our Committee debates. We all recognise that with the decline of gas in the UK continental shelf, in the North sea, we will be ever more reliant, as we approach 2020, on imported gas. For energy security, therefore, we need more gas storage. The Bill is designed to facilitate that with an appropriate, fit-for-purpose regulatory regime—hence the technical amendments to clarify the relevant planning aspects.
	Several companies are coming forward with proposals for extra gas storage, and we strongly welcome that. I am not sure that there is a great deal of difference between the hon. Gentleman and me, but I am pleased that he has had the opportunity to make that point again. On the technical amendments, however, there is nothing between us.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7
	 — 
	Disposal of hazardous material

'(1) Where the Secretary of State enters an agreement for, or in connection with, the disposal of relevant hazardous material by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, the agreement may provide for a fee to be paid to the Secretary of State.
	(2) The Secretary of State may not enter an agreement which provides for the payment of a fee unless the consent of the Treasury has been obtained in relation to the amount of the proposed fee.
	(3) The fee for which such an agreement provides may include—
	(a) such amount as the Secretary of State considers prudent by reason of any uncertainty which exists about the relevant expenditure which will or may be incurred in connection with the Secretary of State's obligations under the agreement in relation to the relevant hazardous material;
	(b) an amount in respect of such proportion as the Secretary of State considers appropriate of the aggregate of—
	(i) the relevant expenditure which has been, will or may be, incurred in connection with the design and construction of a repository in which material (including any hazardous material to which the agreement relates) is to be disposed of, and
	(ii) such amount as the Secretary of State considers it prudent to make allowance for by reason of any uncertainty which exists about the relevant expenditure which will or may be incurred as mentioned in sub-paragraph (i).
	(4) In this section—
	"hazardous material" has the meaning given by section 37 of the Energy Act 2004 (c. 20);
	"relevant expenditure" means expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority or any other person;
	"relevant hazardous material" means hazardous material which is, or is required to be, the subject of a funded decommissioning programme.'.— [Malcolm Wicks.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	This issue attracted a good deal of attention in Committee, and properly so. The new clause makes explicit in the Bill the policy that the Government have made clear in the nuclear White Paper, in the consultation on the guidance for funded decommissioning programmes, on the Bill's Second Reading and in Committee. The Secretary of State will set a fixed unit price for new nuclear operators, including a significant risk premium for the disposal of waste. The new clause makes transparent our intentions regarding the pricing of long-term waste management.
	Let me give a brief recap of our intentions for the benefit of Members who were not present in Committee. We are creating a framework to ensure that operators of new nuclear power stations are responsible for, and make prudent provision to meet, the full costs of decommissioning and their full share of waste management costs. The effect of the framework will be to ensure that operators of new nuclear power stations return the sites, after those stations have been decommissioned, to a state that will be agreed with regulators and the planning authority—it is likely to be similar to a greenfield state. That will be financed by making provision, throughout the generating life of the power station, for back-end costs.
	Under the framework, any potential operator will have to submit a funded decommissioning programme to the Secretary of State for approval. Such programmes will have to include the technical steps that will be required to manage and dispose of radioactive waste and spent fuel and to decommission the power station and clean up the site. They will also have to include a prudent estimate of the costs involved in those steps and proposals on how the operator will accumulate funds to meet those costs. Our intention is that before development consents for new nuclear power stations are granted, the Government will need to be satisfied that effective arrangements exist, or will exist, to manage and dispose of the waste that they will produce.

Michael Weir: The Minister says that before such projects go ahead, provision will have to be made for cost, but will that be monitored by the Government over the life of the station and the life of the disposal of the waste, which could be for a long time? How will it be dealt with over such a length of time?

Malcolm Wicks: I welcome the interest in the issue from Scotland. We are introducing a regime to put into practice the principle that new nuclear must pay its full costs, including those for the disposal of waste. We are setting up a new committee to help us get the finances right, but the purpose of the fixed price is to give the investor confidence at the beginning of the life of a nuclear reactor about what the costs will be— [Interruption.] It may help if I make a little progress. We missed the hon. Gentleman in Committee—I know he would have aided our deliberations—and I am sure that I would have been able to persuade him that new nuclear has a role in a modern economy, whether it be in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK.

Paddy Tipping: Will the Minister remind us whether the Bill applies to Scotland? Like him, I welcome the comments from the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), but my impression is that some political parties in Scotland say no to nuclear, which is not a sensible long-term policy.

Malcolm Wicks: That is also my understanding. Some in Scotland are saying no to nuclear, so the Bill's provisions in respect of these issues do not, sadly, apply to Scotland. Let me make some progress.
	The Government will set new-build operators a fixed unit price for the disposal of their intermediate level waste and spent fuel. That figure will contain a significant risk premium over and above the expected costs of disposing of intermediate level waste and spent fuel. The fixed unit price will be set by the Government on a case-by-case basis when a new-build operator comes forward to construct a new power station. The risk premium added to the fixed unit price will reflect the level of uncertainty in the cost estimates of waste disposal at the time the agreement is entered into.
	For example, the fixed unit price for waste disposal for a power station being constructed in five years' time might well be different from the fixed unit price agreed for a power station being constructed in 10 years' time. The difference arises because, over time, it is likely that understanding of the expected costs of the geological disposal facility and associated activities will increase. Therefore, at the time the agreement is entered into, the Government could be more comfortable attaching a different risk premium to the fixed unit price.

Stephen Ladyman: That raises a question, does it not? We do not know how many people are going to come forward to build new nuclear power stations. If we make an estimate based on, say, five new stations being built, that will imply a certain share of the depository costs being divided five ways. If, in the end, 10 such stations are built—or the Scots come to their senses and allow some new nuclear build in Scotland so that more than the estimated number of stations are built—the share of the repository costs later on will be lower than they were earlier on. Will there be any process to enable rebates to be given to those who made a more than fair share of the contribution because they came forward earlier?

Malcolm Wicks: Obviously, the time scales are important, and they are likely to be long. It is not possible to say exactly when the geological repository will be built and up and running, but it will be some time hence. When a proposal is made to build a new nuclear station, the more immediate task—I appreciate the difficulties—is to seek to estimate what would be a reasonable share of decommissioning and of the costs in the geological repository. Because of the uncertainties, we believe it important to go for the fixed price concept, but also to include the risk premium.

Steve Webb: rose—

Malcolm Wicks: I am happy to give way, but then I want to make some progress.

Steve Webb: I am grateful. The form of words used by the Department has always been "the full cost" of decommissioning and "the full share" of the costs of cleaning up the waste, but the concepts of "full" and "share" seem to be at odds with each other. Either it is a share, or it is the full amount. For the sake of clarity, would it be more precise to refer to the charge as for the full marginal costs?

Malcolm Wicks: When it comes to the cost of decommissioning the plant, it is relatively straightforward, although there are all sorts of technical ramifications, but we recognise that we have a duty to clear up our legacy of nuclear waste in any case—hence, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the process to seek a volunteer community for the geological repository. We need a geological repository for the legacy anyway, but with new nuclear reactors, to put it in simple terms, extra space will be needed for new nuclear waste. Our determination is to ensure that the market or the companies pay the full cost of that extra space.

Steve Webb: I am trying to distinguish between marginal and average costs. If extra waste is produced because I set up a new nuclear power plant, marginal costs will arise, but am I expected to meet only those marginal costs associated with the disposal of that extra waste or should I also make a contribution to the average fixed costs of the operation?

Malcolm Wicks: The operator would also make a contribution to the fixed costs, but let me make some progress.
	The risk premium should help ensure that the operator bears the risks associated with uncertainty in waste costs. We believe that it will provide the taxpayer with protection against the eventuality that the actual costs of geological disposal exceed the projected costs.

Elliot Morley: rose—

Malcolm Wicks: With respect, may I make a little more progress?
	The fixed unit price and risk premium will provide new-build operators with clarity on the maximum amount they would be expected to pay the Government. That cost certainty will enable them to make investment decisions and seek financing for new-build. Should the actual costs of providing the waste disposal service prove lower than expected, those lower cost savings would not be passed on to nuclear operators. Instead, they would accrue to the Government because companies would have forgone any advantage in the form of lower costs in return for certainty in the price of waste disposal. Because the Government have taken on the risk, it is only right that they keep any upside that accrues.
	In light of the debate in Committee on the fixed price for waste and the request for greater transparency, we decided to draft the new clause to set out clearly the Government's policy intentions on the issue. In essence, the new clause translates our existing stated policy on waste disposal set out in the nuclear White Paper and in the draft guidance on nuclear decommissioning programmes into the Bill. I am now happy to give way to my right hon. Friend.

Elliot Morley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has already addressed some of the risk premium issues that I was contemplating. Will there be a ceiling on what nuclear investors will be expected to pay? Depending on cost overruns or unforeseen costs, which are very likely, they will presumably be charged up to the ceiling on the premium. Is my understanding correct?

Malcolm Wicks: There will be a fixed price, which, as I have indicated, will probably not be the same in respect of a station built in the early days as that for one built 10 years later because by then we will know more about the costs of the geological repository. The principle of the fixed price operates in two parts. First, for the purpose of investor confidence, a fixed price will be determined early in the life of the new nuclear reactor so that money going into the given fund will be paid from year one—a key part of the Bill. Secondly, because of the uncertainties about the costs—we appreciate the difficulties in this respect because we may be talking about waste that does not need to be disposed of for 40, 50 or more years—what we are calling a risk premium will be determined. We are adding an extra amount to the fixed price to safeguard the taxpayer.

Lembit �pik: rose

Malcolm Wicks: Before the hon. Gentleman comes in, may I try to give a fuller answer to the question I was asked about the full share of waste costs? As I said, those costs are directly attributable to accepting new-build higher-activity waste into a geological disposal facility. Added to that is a contribution towards the fixed costs of constructing that facility, which the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) mentioned. That will also involve a significant risk premium to cover uncertainties, and the cost of managing waste pending disposal or transfer for disposal. Separately, operators are also responsible for the full cost of disposing of low-level waste in a disposal facility, and managing that and other waste pending its disposal. We are doing our best to put our principlethat the costs must be paid fully by the operating companies, and that there should be no cost to the taxpayerinto practice.

Lembit �pik: rose

Malcolm Wicks: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene on principle or practice or a bit of both, but I am happy to give way to him.

Lembit �pik: I want to ask about practice. Why is the Minister confident that the new clause provides a mechanism guaranteeing that the taxpayer will not be landed with an additional bill, given the notorious regularity of that phenomenon in the case of the nuclear industry? Has he consulted, for example, the Centre for Alternative Technology, which has gone to great lengths to examine the costs of nuclear power and disposal? Has he factored in the cost of reprocessing waste, which may become necessary as uranium becomes scarcer? All those elements may involve a significant cost to the taxpayer if the new clause is not robust enough to ensure that the industry covers 100 per cent. of the cost.

Malcolm Wicks: That is our intention. We are going into some technical detail, and we are establishing a committee to help us to understand the financial implications and ensure that our intention becomes practice. I know that some people are doubtful about that, pointing to past practice, but we are adamant that there will be no subsidy in this instancealthough renewable technology receives a considerable subsidy, and rightly so.
	As for consultation, we engaged in one of the widest and most thorough consultations in the history of British public policy. We were given good advice by non-governmental organisations and, indeed, the judiciary, for which we are extremely grateful. The most important part of the process, in my view, was our random selection from electoral registers of 1,000 people to take part in public consultations in some nine city centres. For a day those people were subjected to the arguments for and against, and I considered it a very good example of modern democracy.
	The shorter answer is that I am satisfied that everyone has had an opportunity to contribute thoroughly to consultation on this important issue.

Charles Hendry: I welcome the Minister's intention of clarifying the issue, although I think that some of his explanations made it slightly more complicated than it needed to be, particularly his reply to the question from the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley).
	It is vital for taxpayers to know how their interests will be protected, and essential for the companies that are potential investors in new-build nuclear to know exactly what costs they will face before embarking on their investment plans. We need absolute clarity on that issue, because, as both we and the Government have said, we must ensure that there is no public subsidy for new-build nuclear. Our position is clear: we are happy for companies to invest in new-build nuclear as long as there is no subsidy, and as long as they are responsible for the full costs of decommissioning and the full long-term costs of disposal of spent fuel and waste. We think that, in return, they should be given a level playing field when it comes to sorting out the planning problems that they have faced in the past, although we do not agree with the Government about the total loss of local democracy in the measures proposed in the Planning Bill.
	We think that there should be site and type approval, so that two of the biggest issues that have delayed developments in the pastthe precise type and the precise location of reactorscan be excluded from the debate. We are also keen to reassure investors that any change of Government will not pose a threat to their investments, or fundamentally change the ground rules for the investments that they have been considering. We consider it absolutely right for us to work with the Government to ensure that the right system is introduced.
	We are pleased that the new clause gives those who develop new-build nuclear programmes full responsibility for storing the waste on site for a considerable period, potentially as much as 100 years, and for paying their fair share of the long-term disposal costs and some of the infrastructure costs of building nuclear facilities. We also accept the notion of a flat fee and a risk premium, but here the Minister started to make things a little more complicated. The right hon. Member for Scunthorpe asked whether there would be a ceiling for the premium. My understanding is that there will be a fixed cost but also a fixed element that is the risk premium, which means that if the amount is lower than the ceiling, companies will still pay the full fixed premium. In other words, the ceiling is not flexible.
	We need much more detail. We know that it cannot be given to us today, but it will be important to our future considerations. Will the fee ultimately be based on the volume of nuclear waste alone, and if so, will it reflect the balance between high-level and intermediate-level waste? Will it take account of radioactivity levels? The extent to which waste needs to be encased may differ according to the level of radioactivity. Building-cost inflation is higher than inflation in general; how will the fee take account of that?
	When does the Minister think the repository will be built? What is his best guess? He said that it was difficult to be precise, but we are not asking for precision. Are we looking at three, five, eight or 10 decades? At what point does he think the site for the repository will be identified and earmarked for further investigation? There is a fear that not enough progress has been made in that regard. Does he think that a single repository will be sufficient for the disposal of both legacy waste and all waste from a new-build programme? The Secretary of State said recently that he thought there might be twice as much nuclear power in a few years' time. Does the Minister believe that, in the event of a massive expansion of nuclear power, all the waste could be incorporated in a single facility, or does he think that we might need two? That would involve huge additional infrastructure costs, which would need to be taken into account.
	The Minister explained about lower costs, and said that there would be no repayment of the risk premium. If it becomes clear that the Government miscalculated, that the cost of building a repository will be much greater than they estimated and that the cost will therefore be greater than the total amount charged to the nuclear companies, including the risk premium, will there be any scope for the Government to tell the companies, We suggested this amount in good faith but we got it wrong, so a supplementary charge will be necessary? I know that the Government are acting in good faith, but they may end up subsidising the nuclear waste disposal regime, and I know that that is not their intention.

Stephen Ladyman: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the opposite risk? Is there not a danger that, because in the early days the Government will go out of their way to ensure that all the costs are covered, the early builders will be quoted a higher fixed charge than the people who come along subsequently? Given that we do not want to discourage people from entering the industry at an early stage, the Government may need to give some thought to the possibility of lowering charges later if it turns out that people are paying too much.

Charles Hendry: That is a valid point. If the assumption in the early days was that five nuclear power stations would be needed, the cost of road infrastructure and the building of the repository would be very high; but if we ended up with 20, the figure would change dramatically. There must be equity, or the cost will be prejudiced against the early developers, and it is they who will kick-start the programme if it is to happen.
	Will the Minister also tell us more about his approach on the reprocessing of spent and used fuels? There is considerable potential for that within the industry. Britain has led the world on it in the past, and will be keen to do so again. It could greatly reduce the volume of waste that needs to be disposed of, particularly for the most radioactive of materials. The Government, however, are being rather coy about their plans on reprocessing. Also, how would this be factored into the costs? If some radioactive material were to be reprocessed and therefore did not require disposal so the volumes were significantly different from those initially estimated, how would that be taken into account in the long-term costs?
	In general, we accept the way in which the Government are progressing, but we believe that it is very important to have clarity so far as the industry is concerned, and a lot of detail has still to be sorted out.

Elliot Morley: I welcome the thrust of the new clause. It is disgraceful that the nuclear sector has over the decades moved a lot of its liabilities and debts on to public liabilitiesalthough I have to say that that has been the case in just about every country where there has been nuclear power, so it is not unique to our sector. If we are to have new nuclear, it is of fundamental importance that there should not be Government subsidies or a liability that falls on the public after private companies have made their profits over a period of time.
	I think that the Government are genuine in their approach to this matter, and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is, but this is a very complex and difficult area, as has been picked up on in the debate. I now understand exactly what the risk premium will be and also the thinking behind what the Minister has said. However, I know that the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management first recommended that there should be an interim site for the storage of waste, and I presume that the cost of that site would have to be factored into the calculations, and then goodness knows when the longer term depository will be built. The costs and technical challenges of that are huge. That is where the problem lies, because it will be difficult for the Department to calculate what that risk premium should be. It is a bit optimistic to think that we could go back to the nuclear industry and say, We got it wrong, so can we have some more money? as I assume that it will have signed various contracts on the arrangements, and it might be a little reluctant to agree to such an approach.
	Will my hon. Friend the Minister give us some more detail? For example, is it feasible to have an upper and lower range in the risk premium? I accept that if there is investment the investors need to have some certainty and to know what their maximum liabilities could be. That is not unreasonable; I understand it for such investment in major infrastructure. However, it is also not unreasonable to have some protection for the public and the taxpayer.

Robert Smith: On the issue of protecting the taxpayer, does the right hon. Gentleman think that there needs to be a further protection against the company becoming financially insolvent and therefore being unable to deliver when the need arises? Should some protection against insolvency be built into the system?

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman is a mind reader, because that was the second point that I was going to raise. There has been a history of financial instability in the private sector in the nuclear industry. We all know what happened to British Energy, for example; it had to be bailed out by the taxpayer. There was no choice in that, because if we want to keep the lights on, we have to step in and pick up such liabilities.
	Will my hon. Friend the Minister clarify the following point? I understood from what he said that the investors in new nuclear will make a regular payment into a fund, year on year, which covers part of my point. However, in order to protect the taxpayer from people walking away from their liabilities by just wrapping up and going into bankruptcy, is there an argument for some protection such as a bond? That is not unprecedented. It is the case in the waste industry, for example; the Government rightly require waste disposal companies to put down a bond that guarantees the future maintenance of sites. Might the Minister like to consider something like that?

Martin Horwood: It is welcome to have before us a measure that attempts clarification, as the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) said, but that is difficult to achieve in this case. Nevertheless, I share the Minister's intention of trying to clarify matters, as I do his high regard for Greenpeace and its contribution to the process that has brought us to this pointalthough I suspect my tongue is slightly less in my cheek in saying that.
	The Liberal Democrat position on the nuclear question is clear. We think that the safest way to ensure that there is no public subsidy for nuclear new-build is not to build it. I assure any investors who may be watching our debate on the parliamentary channel that their investment will be at risk if we play a part in any future Government, because if we had the chance we would seek to slow down, and if possible to stop, the development of nuclear power.

Sammy Wilson: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but will he therefore outline the Liberal Democrats' position on buying in power from other countries? When there is a need to supplement peak load, would his party oppose buying in from countries that supply power through nuclear power stations?

Martin Horwood: The hon. Gentleman raises a quite different point that does not relate to the Bill, so I shall pass on. Let me say, however, that energy markets are complex and we cannot always prescribe where the energy will come from, but my ideal would be that we do not in future source nuclear power from any country, because I would not want those countries building nuclear either.

Stephen Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Horwood: I shall not give way, as I wish to make some progress.

Charles Hendry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Horwood: No; I want to make just a little progress.
	The context of this issue is the enormous cost of decommissioning and clean-up with which the first generation of nuclear power stations left us. In Committee, we explored the various current costs that the taxpayer is having to pick up from the nuclear installations inspectorate, CoRWM, the potential nuclear financing assurance board, and the big daddy of them all, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. The Minister gave assurances that many of those were intended to be covered under the new regime. That is quite a threat to investors, given the cost of the NDA. The net grant-in-aid contribution of the taxpayer to the NDA in 2007-08 is 1.4 billion. That is rising by 8 per cent.a very good settlement, as many public sector organisations would agreein 2008-09, and by almost a further 5 per cent. in 2009-10. Therefore, the taxpayer will soon be facing an annual bill of 1.6 billion from the last generation of nuclear power stations. It is brave of the Government to be leading us down the same path a second time. When we listed all the potential costs to the taxpayer, the Minister gave a lot of assurances about which of them were intended to be entirely covered by the regime, but there was one exception: long-term storage and the financial regime covering that, which the new clause addresses.
	It has rightly been said that there is, in effect, a ceiling to the risk to the private sector and an ongoing liability and risk to the taxpayer. We discussed at length in Committee the various time-scale problems. The hon. Member for Wealden has again raised a lot of the questions, many of them unanswered, such as about how the costs can be predicted or divided. For instance, although the new generation of nuclear power stations may, should it ever come to pass, produce radioactive waste in smaller volumes, it may well be much more radioactive and therefore pose new technical challenges that are different from those facing the repository for the current generation of nuclear power stations.
	There is also the question of whether we are expecting to take in foreign radioactive waste, as we have done in the past. Are we, in effect, to become the nuclear dustbin of the whole of Europe, or countries further afield, by being one of the few countries brave enough to progress with the idea of repositories?
	It is tempting to try to apportion proportions of the blank cheque that we think is at risk of being written, but as the Minister has honestly accepted, the problem is that we cannot know the real context in which all this will be decided in 40 or 50 years' time. We are seriously expected to sign up to licence fees for a repository for radioactive waste that does not exist, in a location that has not been found, for amounts that we cannot calculate, and all for power stations that might never be built and that no sane investor would touch with a barge pole. This is nuclear fairyland, and the Minister has an impossible task in persuading us that he can provide clarity and reassurance on this matter.

Charles Hendry: We need greater clarity on the position of the hon. Gentleman's party on this matter. He just made the profoundly important comment that Liberal Democrat involvement in government would put at risk investment in this area, and people who might be seeking to invest billions of pounds in this project will need to know exactly what that means. Is he saying that a condition of the Liberal Democrats' entering a coalition would be an end to a nuclear new-build programme? If he is not saying that, what does he mean? If he is saying that, is he therefore saying that the Liberal Democrats would compensate the investment made, or would someone be expected to invest now and then find that that money is simply written off by their involvement?

Martin Horwood: Although I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg) has great regard for my opinions, he is unlikely to ask me to determine the basis on which the Liberal Democrats might talk to other parties after a general election by what I say when discussing the Energy Bill.

Brian Binley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Horwood: No, not on that point.
	The Minister referred in passing to an advisory committeethe proposed nuclear liabilities financing assurance boardwhich is mentioned in the White Paper but is strangely absent from the Bill. In Committee, we proposed an amendment that would give statutory force to and statutory reassurance about its role, but that was resisted by the Government. I would not mind hearing the Minister again tell us precisely why the NLFAB was excluded from the Bill and why it is not present in the regime described in the new clause, because that relates to one of the arguments that he is using to assure us on the future financing of the nuclear industry, and the NLFAB surely should have been given legal force.
	The risk is that 40 years hence some future Government will find themselves with unexpected problems on decommissioning and disposalperhaps spiralling financial or political costs. They will say that the situation is nothing to do with them and that it is all the fault of Labour Ministers back in the noughties who made bad decisions in 2008, many decades ago, because they did not know what they were planning. They will ask, How could those Ministers have landed us with all these problems? In the end, the taxpayer will have to pick up the bill because, as the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), a former Minister, described in relation to the previous process, there is no way that we can avoid doing so if we become reliant on nuclear energy and we are to keep the lights on.
	The chance of this new clause and the Bill being intact in 40 years' time is virtually nil, and the Government are leading us down a high-risk path given the poisonous legacy of nuclear power and the creation of radioactive waste that will last for millenniums. The new clause and the system that it will help to create involves a high risk for generations of British taxpayers.

Stephen Ladyman: There are two sets of contributors to this debate: those who, like me, believe that nuclear energy will play a key part in reducing our carbon emissions in decades to come, and those who want to stop nuclear energy at all costs and want to continue this debate as a way of making it as difficult as possible for people to invest in the industry.
	Before I deal with the substantive issue of the new clause, I should like to correct one of the myths that we have heard. My right hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) slightly fell into the trap of citing it, but it has clearly been enunciated by Liberal Democrat Members. I am talking about the myth that the legacy cost is a private liability that was imposed on the public sector and the taxpayer. It was not, because almost all that liability was generated by a nationalised industry, and that public liability has been retained by the public sector. We need to devise a new process and a new structure that deals with a new industry, which will involve private investment and needs to be carefully controlled to ensure that it does not impose a liability on the public sector. That is what the Minister has sought to do through this new clause.

Martin Horwood: I seem to remember that the taxpayer was told, This electricity will be too cheap to meter.

Stephen Ladyman: I cannot speak for what people were told in the 1950s, but that is a relevant issue, which is why we need to get the approach right now. The hon. Gentleman has told us that not going forward with the nuclear programme would be a condition of the Liberal Democrats' involvement in a future Government. He has also said, in effect, that were they to get into power, they would tear up the Climate Change Act, because it will require us to commit to ways of reducing our carbon emissions, and that will almost certainly involve a Labour Governmentor, perish the thought, a Conservative Governmentbuilding new nuclear power stations. The Liberals will come along at some point saying, We are not going to have these nuclear power stations any more. They will thus have to tear up their commitment to the Climate Change Bill, and as the Bill will provide for a legal commitment on the Government, the Liberals would be able to do so only by repealing the legislation once it is enacted. They have got themselves into a complete knot on this matter.
	The Minister should be congratulated on listening to the concerns expressed in Committee about the need to provide the industry with clarity and on coming back to us today with a new clause that deals with the issue in a clear and straightforward way.

Jamie Reed: My hon. Friend is a scientist, and he has brought much-needed scientific analysis to the debate that I have thus far heard on the monitors. Does he share my dismay that, in addition to the Liberal Democrat position of deterring billions of pounds of investment in the UK economy, there is a regrettable omission in Opposition Members' analysis of the costs of the waste that we are discussing and their basis? For instance, I have heard it said that the liability costs were incurred by our first fleet of reactors. Does my hon. Friend agree that the costs were essentially incurred as a result of our military programme?

Stephen Ladyman: My hon. Friend is right; the vast majority of the legacy results from defence and military purposes. We need to dispel the myths that have arisen as part of the debate and focus on the way forward.

Elliot Morley: Although I do not disagree with the points being raised and in particular with what is being said about the motivation for the original nuclear programme coming from the military, I seek clarification. That programme was state-funded, and a lot of those costs fell to the state. Whether we like it or not, we now have a privatised nuclear sector. It was privatised by the Conservative party, and, as with many of its privatisations, debts and liabilities were written off to make what was being sold more attractive to investors. The enormous liabilities that we have come from that period, which is why my hon. Friends and I are anxious that that does not happen again.

Stephen Ladyman: My right hon. Friend brings me to the point that I wanted to make about the new clause. By introducing it, the Minister has tried to provide the industry with complete clarity about what it will have to pay in order to contribute a fair share of the cost of decommissioning, cleaning up and storing the new capacity that is generated. He has even made it clear that a risk premium will be imposed on the industry, so it will be clear about that. My concern, which I have expressed in a couple of interventions, is that to ensure that he is 100 per cent. confident that the public sector will not face a new liability in the future, he will have to be cautious in estimating the future costs. He will probably also have to be cautious in estimating the number of nuclear power stations that will be built.
	As the need to build more nuclear power stations to provide us with energy security and to attack our carbon emissions in the decades to come becomes clearer and clearer, I suspect we will end up building more nuclear power stations than we initially estimated and the Minister's initial estimates of the costs involved will turn out to have been far too high. I am concerned that we should be able to reassure potential investors that, if it becomes clear in five, 10 or 20 years that they have been charged too much, there will be some process for reducing their costs.
	If we can provide such reassurance, it will encourage people to come forward early, even though they are bound to be cautious about potential investments, especially if they hear irresponsible comments such as those made by the Liberal Democrats today threatening to overturn a policy that will have been instituted. Investors are bound to be cautious, but we could tell them that we will do the best we can to estimate the costs and, if it turns out that we have completely overestimated themalthough there will be a risk premiumwe would consider reducing the cost to the investors of storage and decommissioning in the future.

Malcolm Wicks: We have had a detailed discussion and I am happy to follow the authoritative speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman). I thank him for his contribution.
	I shall try to deal with the specific questions that have arisen, but I wish to acknowledge that I am aware of the difficulties we face in the quest to put principle into practice. Technically, this is a complex issue and the time scales are very long. I hope to convince the House that we will use our best endeavours to set up processes and advisory services to get this right.
	I was asked whether the risk premium has a ceiling. In a sense it does, because there will be a fixed price and a risk premium on top of that. That will not vary up or down. I listened to my hon. Friend, but if the Government make some money out of thiswhich is not the intentionand the risk premium turns out to have been too high, that is the quid pro quo for the investor having confidence in the costs through the fixed price.
	I was asked whether one geological repository would be enough. That is certainly our intention. We are at the early stages of thinking on the repository, the volunteer principle and so on, but that is our intention. If, generations hence, people return to this issue, that will be a matter for them.
	I was also asked what would happen if costs for the geological disposal facility overran. We will do our utmost to be rigorous in project management, although it is more likely that cost overruns will occur in relation to the fixed costs of designing, researching and building the repository rather than in relation to incremental costs that are directly attributable to the cost of disposing of new-build waste. The Government would have to incur the costs of designing, researching and building the repository with proper project management. For each station built a fixed unit price will be set above the central estimate of costs, because of the risk premium provision.

Jamie Reed: Does the Minister agree that one of the other issues that we need to bear in mind when considering potential cost overruns is the savings that the establishment of a repository will make, not only for the NDA but for the UK taxpayer, by slashing the decommissioning costs that we now face? The current nuclear liability costs are estimated at 78 billion, but the sooner we have a repository in place, the sooner we can whittle those costs right down.

Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend is an expert in that area and that was a useful contribution.

Steve Webb: Is he right though?

Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but at this stage I cannot judge whether his optimism is justified. If it were not for optimism, politics would be a dismal science, and I have always thought that my hon. Friend has an optimistic bias.

Jamie Reed: I may be an optimist, but I think that I am the only Member present who has worked in the nuclear industry. Indeed, I worked in this particular field, so I speak from a position of some authority.

Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend is a humble optimist [ Interruption. ] Apparently there are other contenders.
	The fixed unit price will be based on the best available cost information at the time an operator requests a fixed price, with uncertainty factored in when determining the appropriate risk premium. Consequently, dependent on the date of the nuclear power station's construction, operators of different power stations may be set different fixed unit prices for waste disposal. A road map, published alongside the consultation on the draft guidance, sets out further detail of when we expect to be in a position to publish the methodology we will use to determine the appropriate level for the fixed unit price.
	I was asked a difficult question about my best guess on when the repository would be available. We are pursuing an approach to the siting of the geological disposal facility based on voluntarism and partnership. An important part of the process will be to agree an indicative timetable with the volunteer community. Therefore it is not possible to give a firm indication now. However, the Managing Radioactive Waste Safely White Paper will include more information and will be published shortly.
	I was also asked what would happen if a company or operator went bankrupt. If a nuclear operator were to become insolvent, we would expect that in most circumstances it would be economic to continue running the plant, as the additional costs of operation are likely to be less than the revenue earned from generating electricity. That would make the acquisition of a power station attractive to an alternative nuclear operator. Additionally, moneys in the fund have to be secure in the event of insolvency, and the operator is required to have back-up protection in place to top up an insufficient fund.
	The hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) asked me about radioactivity versus volume and the effect on the price. That is work that is ongoing, and we will publish a methodology and model in due course.
	I was asked about reprocessing, and specifically whether the fixed unit price would include possible reprocessing. The fixed unit price will be based on the Government's current policy for waste disposal, as set out in the nuclear White Paper. We consider that spent fuel from new nuclear power stations will not be reprocessed, but will be disposed of in the geological disposal facility. That is not to say that we are closing the door on the idea of reprocessing, but we have to make some assumptions. The fixed unit price will be based on the expected costs of geological disposal of spent fuel, not on any assumption of reprocessing.
	I was asked by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) whether we will take on foreign waste, as we have in the past. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the international conventions governing the movement and disposal of radioactive waste. Those would need to be taken into account when considering any proposals to dispose of foreign waste in the geological disposal facility.
	I turn now to how the fund will be monitored. Operators will be required to have in place arrangements for monitoring both the expected costs and the performance of the fund, which will be at arm's length from the company of course. Arrangements would include annual reviews by the operator and the fund managers, which would be submitted to the Secretary of State; in-depth quinquennial reviews conducted by the operators and fund managers and submitted to the Secretary of State; notification of changes, such as operational or technical changes that materially increase the operator's liabilities; and other specific events, including a change of control or ownership of the operator, or a change in the credit rating of the operator or parent company. Ministers may also obtain information if required. They may call on the expert advice of the board that we are establishing, the NLFAB, and of independent third parties.
	I should say that by creating the new board as an advisory body we are ensuring that the Secretary of State retains overall responsibility for the approval of the funded decommissioning programme. That enables the Secretary of State to take a view not only of the advice of the board on the suitability of the funding arrangements, but of any advice from environmental and health and safety regulators. We can argue, as we have, that this approach is more cost-effective than creating a statutory board that would require further consultations and a permanent body of members.
	My ambitions today are twofold. First, with the leave of the House, I want to see Report and Third Reading safely through the Chamber. Secondly, I want to watch the football this evening. It is not my ambition to enter into jests with those on the Liberal Benches, but I heard the hon. Member for Cheltenham say that future investors could have no confidence that a Liberal Government would maintain a nuclear programme. I regret that, of course, because responsibility in government is important. I note that British Energy has a base in Gloucester and employs about 1,000 people. I imagine that some of them reside in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and will have listened to him with great care. I do not know whether he has any further message for the Liberal Democrats who are hoping to hold on to their seats in Barnwood ward, where British Energy resides, and it may be that a change of policy is afoot.

Martin Horwood: I can tell the Minister that I would advise them to vote Liberal Democrat, as they are currently saddled with a Labour MP.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think we can draw a line under the hustings at this stage.

Malcolm Wicks: Indeed. Anyone would think that there were elections coming up later in the week, would they not, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
	That was exactly where I wanted to draw the lineon a trivial note. I hope that I have done enough to satisfy colleagues that our amendment should be accepted.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8
	  
	Power to amend licence conditions: smart meters

'(1) The Secretary of State may modify
	(a) a condition of a particular licence under section 6(1)(c) or (d) of the Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29) (distribution and supply licences);
	(b) the standard conditions incorporated in licences under those provisions by virtue of section 8A of that Act;
	(c) a condition of a particular licence under section 7 or 7A of the Gas Act 1986 (c. 44) (transporter, supply and shipping licences);
	(d) the standard conditions incorporated in licences under those provisions by virtue of section 8 of that Act;
	(e) a document maintained in accordance with the conditions of licences under section 6(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 or section 7 or 7A of the Gas Act 1986, or an agreement that gives effect to a document so maintained.
	(2) The Secretary of State may exercise the power in subsection (1) for the purpose only of
	(a) requiring the holder of a licence to provide or install, or facilitate the provision, installation or operation of, meters of a particular kind, or
	(b) requiring the holder of a licence to make arrangements related to the matters mentioned in paragraph (a).
	(3) Modifications made by virtue of subsection (1) may include
	(a) technical specifications for meters (including specifications in respect of matters relevant to the ability to obtain remote access to meters);
	(b) a prohibition on the supply of gas or electricity through a meter other than a meter which complies with a technical specification under paragraph (a);
	(c) provision about the installation of meters which comply with a technical specification under paragraph (a) (including provision about the replacement of existing meters);
	(d) provision about electricity generated by a customer;
	(e) provision about the circumstances in which any pre-payment facilities of a meter may be utilised;
	(f) provision about the use of a meter remotely to disconnect a customer's premises;
	(g) provision about the protection of consumers;
	(h) provision about access to, and the use of, an electricity distribution system or part of an electricity distribution system for communication in connection with a meter;
	(i) provision about access to information from meters (including provision enabling a customer, or a person acting on a customer's behalf, to have access to information about the customer's consumption of gas or electricity);
	(j) provision about communication of information by or to meters (including provision about its onward communication) and about the use of such information;
	(k) provision requiring the holder of the licence to enter (or refrain from entering) into an agreement of a specified kind, or with a specified person;
	(l) provision specifying, or enabling the determination of, a date from which a modification is to take effect.
	(4) The power conferred by subsection (1)
	(a) may be exercised to make different provision in relation to different classes of customer;
	(b) may be exercised generally, only in relation to specified cases or subject to exceptions (including provision for a case to be excepted only so long as specified conditions are satisfied);
	(c) may be exercised differently in different cases or circumstances;
	(d) includes a power to make incidental, supplementary, consequential or transitional modifications.
	(5) The power conferred by subsection (1) may not be exercised after the end of the period of 5 years beginning with the day on which that subsection comes into force.
	(6) Provision included in a licence by virtue of that power
	(a) need not relate to the activities authorised by the licence;
	(b) in the case of a licence under section 7 or 7A of the Gas Act 1986 (c. 44), may do any of the things authorised by section 7B(5) of that Act (which apply to the Gas and Electricity Market Authority's power with respect to licence conditions under section 7B(4)(a));
	(c) in the case of a licence under section 6(1)(c) or (d) of the Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29), may do any of the things authorised by section 7(2) to (4) of that Act (which apply to that Authority's power with respect to licence conditions under section 7(1)(a)).
	(7) In this section a reference to a meter includes a reference to a visual display unit, or any other device, associated with or ancillary to a meter.'. [Malcolm Wicks.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government new clause 9 Power to amend licence conditions: procedure.
	Government new clause 10 Smart meters: supplemental.
	New clause 1 Implementation of new metering arrangements 
	'(1) The relevant licensees for the purposes of this Part are
	(a) gas suppliers and gas transporters within the meaning of Part 1 of the Gas Act 1986 (c. 44); and
	(b) electricity suppliers and electricity distributors within the meaning of Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29).
	(2) The effective date for the purposes of this Part is the date which is 10 years after the date on which section 79 comes into force.
	(3) Expressions used in this Part have the same meaning as in the Part 1 of the Gas Act 1986 or Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989.
	(4) As from the effective date, a relevant licensee must not supply gas or electricity to any premises that is not subject to the provisions of this section.
	(5) The Secretary of State may exempt any relevant licensee from the prohibition imposed by subsection (4) in relation to such premises, for such period of time, and subject to such conditions as he considers appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.
	(6) References in this Part to new metering arrangements are to arrangements (including the provision and operation of any necessary communications and data-handling infrastructure) designed to ensure that, by the effective date, all premises supplied with gas or electricity in Great Britain will continue to be so supplied through a meter that conforms to the following three requirements
	(a) that the meter must record and be able to store measured consumption data for multiple time periods;
	(b) that the meter, either on its own or with an ancillary device, must facilitate remote access to such data; and
	(c) that the meter must meet any specifications that may be set out in any regulations made by the Secretary of State under this Part, pursuant to his duties under Part 1 of the Gas Act 1986 and Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989, for the purposes of facilitating the introduction of new metering arrangements.
	(7) This section may not be brought into force before 1st January 2010.
	(8) The Secretary of State may, in accordance with this section, modify
	(a) the conditions of a particular licence held under section 7(1) or 7A(1) or (2) of the Gas Act 1986 or under section 6(1) of the Electricity Act 1989;
	(b) the standard conditions of licences of any type mentioned in those subsections
	if he considers it necessary or expedient to do so for the purpose of securing the implementation of the provisions of this section.
	(9) The power to make modifications under paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (8) includes powers
	(a) to make modifications requiring licence holders, or classes of licence holder, to cooperate together, under arrangements approved by the Authority;
	(b) to make modifications requiring any relevant licensee to take or refrain from taking any specified action, whether in relation to premises supplied with gas or electricity or otherwise;
	(c) to make modifications relating to the operation of access to, or use of pipe-line systems and distribution systems; and
	(d) to make incidental, consequential, or transitional modifications.
	(10) Before making modifications under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the Authority, the holder of any licence being modified, and such other persons as he considers appropriate.
	(11) Subsection (10) may be satisfied by consultation undertaken before, as well as by consultation undertaken after, the commencement of this section.
	(12) Any modification under subsection (8)(b) of part of a standard condition of a licence shall not prevent any other part of the condition from continuing to be regarded as a standard condition for the purposes of Part 1 of the Gas Act 1986 or Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989.
	(13) Where the Secretary of State modifies the standard conditions of licences of any type under subsection (8)(b), the Authority must make the same modifications of those standard conditions for the purposes of their incorporation into licences of that type granted after that time.
	(14) The Secretary of State must publish any modifications under this section in such manner as he considers appropriate.
	(15) The power of the Secretary of State under this section may not be exercised after the end of the period of five years beginning with the passing of this Act.'.
	New clause 3 Regulations on new meters 
	'Where the Secretary of State makes regulations in connection with new metering arrangements under
	(a) this Act;
	(b) Part 1 of the Gas Act 1986; or
	(c) Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989,
	such regulations must require that such meters have the facility to use the data that they collect on gas or electricity consumption for the purpose of assisting the householder to select the gas or electricity tariff which is most to the householder's advantage.'.
	New clause 16 Information on carbon dioxide emissions 
	'The Secretary of State shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, make regulations requiring companies supplying gas or electricity to specify on consumers' energy bills the volume of carbon dioxide emitted in generating the energy supplied in the period to which the bill relates.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 50, 58 and 59.

Malcolm Wicks: It is good to get on to something smart, namely smart meters. The issue was of significant interest during our discussions in Committee and in the slightly wider world. I know that many Members of the House have a keen interest in it.
	During our discussions in Committee, it was clear that both sides of the House were in agreement about the potential benefits of smart meters for both consumers and energy suppliers. The benefits include giving consumers better information to help manage their energy use, providing accurate bills and, potentially, providing easier access to a wider range of tariffs. Smart meters also have the potential to contribute to the future development of the energy services market that many of us hope will be forthcoming.
	Of course, smart meters can also facilitate the export of electricity from microgeneration to the grid. For suppliers, the benefits include reduced costs, for example through remote meter reading, accurate billing and the potential to switch consumers between tariffs. All that will in turn translate into an improved level of customer service. However, Members also recognised that a roll-out of smart meters to all energy consumers would be a complex and highly challenging project, which would entail significant costs as well as the significant benefits I have already outlined.

Steve Webb: There is clearly a lot of uncertainty about cost. The figures that the industry comes up with and those that the Government use vary hugely, perhaps by a factor of three. The key source that the Government seem to use is a report by Mott MacDonald. If that has not already been placed in the Library, would the Minister be willing to ensure that it is?

Malcolm Wicks: Yes.
	The Government published our response to the billing and metering consultation yesterday. I know that yesterday was only yesterday, but I made efforts to ensure that certain colleagues knew about that publication so that they might be able to glance at the report. Last week, we published detailed economic impact assessments of the costs and benefits of a domestic and small business smart meter roll-out, having previously published an impact assessment for a roll-out to medium-sized businesses.
	Before I turn to the Government amendments on smart metering, it would be helpful if I reiterated the Government's policy intentions as set out in our response to the consultation. Our policy is most easily explained by examining our proposed approach in each of the three customer segments that we have identified: medium-sized business, small business and domestic consumers. Hon. Members who have had the opportunity to study the impact assessments that we published will be aware that there is a positive cost-benefit analysis for proceeding with smart metering for the medium-sized business sector and that the Government have therefore already announced in the 2008 Budget our intention to mandate a roll-out of smart meters to the sector over the next five years. That decision will see about 170,000 electricity and 40,000 gas meters being updated with more advanced technology, delivering carbon savings of around 140,000 tonnes of carbon per annum by 2020a small contribution to our carbon targets.
	Based on our analysis to date, I believe there is also a good case for a roll-out of smart meters to small businesses. However, that analysis needs further testing to ensure that our assumptions fully reflect the complexities of the small business sector. As such, we will be undertaking further work with stakeholders to ensure that our initial positive findings are accurate before making final policy decisions on a small business roll-out.
	A roll-out of smart meters to the domestic sector is, of course, a far larger and much more complex project. It would involve replacing some 47 million electricity and gas meters in every home in Great Britain. Current estimated costs to the economy are potentially between 8 billion and 14 billion over 20 years.

Robert Smith: Does the Minister have the figure for the number of meters that are replaced on a renewals cycle when they come to the end of their natural life?

Malcolm Wicks: I will seek to give the hon. Gentleman an accurate answer. If it does not arrive today, I shall write to him.

Michael Weir: rose

Malcolm Wicks: I might cover some of these points in due course, but I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Michael Weir: The domestic roll-out is important. Smart meters must be compatible with different suppliers, so a roll-out should perhaps be done all at one time to make sure that we do not get an issue with different types of smart meters that prevent switching between suppliers.

Malcolm Wicks: I understand those points. Of course, when it comes to the roll-out of smart meters there are a lot of important issues of that kind to determine.
	In answer to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), I am advised that approximately 5 per cent. of total meter stock per annum is replaced. I can see where the hon. Gentleman was coming fromthere is an ongoing investment and we clearly need to factor that in to any cost-benefit analysis.

Charles Hendry: I think Ofgem estimates that 8 per cent. of the meter stock is changed every year, and that is not far from the 10 per cent. that is being recommended. In Committee, the Minister said that the costs could be between 10 billion and 20 billion, and he has now brought that down to between 8 billion and 14 billion. That shows great progress. Ofgem also estimates that the meters would cost between 70 and 90 each, so 47 million would cost about 4.5 billion. Does the Minister think that he might be able to get his costs down a little further on that point, too?

Malcolm Wicks: Well, costs can go up as well as down, as the advertisements say. We are trying to refine the analysis and we need to go further, as all sorts of factors are in play. I said that our current estimates put the costs at between 8 billion and 14 billion, and I have conceded that we need to do more work to refine those figures. That is something that we need to discuss with industry, but our present analysis does not suggest that there is a net positive business case for proceeding. However, the figures are the result of our initial analysis, and are by no means our final word on the subject. Many of the estimated future costs carry a high degree of uncertainty, and some of the anticipated benefits are challenging to quantify in monetary terms.

Lembit �pik: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: I wonder whether I might make some progress. Just occasionally, I answer a question in advance. It happened once, 10 years ago, but it could just happen again.
	As I was saying, the figures are based on our initial analysis, and we need to do more work. For example, we anticipate potential benefits to households as a result of better information, leading to reduced energy usage and, as such, lower energy bills and related carbon savings. We also anticipate benefits for energy suppliers and, in the longer term, for distribution networks. However, analysing in detail the full extent of those benefits and quantifying them is extremely difficult and depends on a number of variables that require further investigation. I suppose that shows that we need more than the back of an envelope to do the calculations on

Charles Hendry: Is that what they did at Ofgem?

Malcolm Wicks: They have very large envelopes at Ofgem; I have seen them.
	The first stage of impact assessment work has been valuable in demonstrating the range of complex issues involved in a domestic smart meter roll-out, and some of them will need further in-depth analysis over the coming months. We therefore intend to take forward a further phase of work in consultation with stakeholders. Our aim will be to ensure that we have the best possible assessment of costs and benefits before taking any final policy decisions on a small business and domestic roll-out.
	Before I give way to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), I should say that our intention is to report our work on these analyses to the House by the end of the year.

Lembit �pik: May I report to the House that, for the second time in 10 years, the Minister has answered a question in advance? He anticipated my question, and caused me to convert my intervention into a brief word of praise for him.
	The Minister will know that the cost of carbon is a very important consideration when the value of smart meters and other technology is being worked out. In the further consultation that will be held, I hope that he will work through the calculations based on different carbon costs. I hope too that he will consider the benefits of smart meters in respect of the feed-in tariffs that will be vital in promoting microgeneration. I know that we will deal with that point shortly, and I look forward to hearing his views.

Malcolm Wicks: As the hon. Gentleman says, we will discuss feed-in tariffs later, but I thank him for his congratulations. My endeavour now is to answer a question that even he has not yet formulated in his mind.
	I turn now to Government new clauses 8, 9 and 10, and the consequential amendments Nos. 50, 58 and 59. I want to explain why we believe that they provide the most appropriate legislative route forward, given the context that I have just outlined.
	New clause 8 allows the Secretary of State to modify relevant electricity and gas licences, or other documents made under licence conditions, to require or facilitate the installation of smart meters. As I have indicated, our intention is that this power will underpin the roll-out of smart meters to medium-sized business in the first instance.
	As is common practice with technical issues in the energy sector, the intention is to specify the detail of the requirements being placed on licensees, and other relevant arrangements, through modifications of licence conditions or other relevant industry documents rather than including that detail on the face of the enabling legislation. Examples of the type of detail that I am referring to would include the specification of the meter, or the speed of a roll-out.
	At this stage, we need to maintain flexibility in defining those details, as they could have significant cost implications. Small changes to the assumptions that we make can have significant impacts on the overall costs, as well as on the potential benefits. We need the flexibility to specify these issues in modifications so that we can identify the optimum, most cost-effective roll-out.
	The new clause also recognises that smart metering is an issue of significant interest to Parliament. It is also potentially one of major national importance, with direct implications for business and consumers. Usually, the Secretary of State would make this type of modification without further recourse to Parliament. The new clause proposes going further by providing a mechanism for additional parliamentary scrutiny.
	More specificallyin addition to the usual requirements for the Secretary of State to consult relevant licensees, Ofgem and any other appropriate personsnew clause 9 requires the Secretary of State to lay the draft modifications in Parliament and allow a period of 40 days in which either House of Parliament may reject them. I believe that that additional parliamentary scrutiny is appropriate and that it will be welcomed.
	Our amendments will allow the Government to move forward now with smart metering for medium-sized business and, subject to further analysis and informal consultation, to be in a position to act as quickly as possible to roll out smart meters to the small business and domestic sectors, should our final analysis support that. That is the most sensible approach, given the inherent flexibility needed in developing and implementing the licensing and other arrangements in this evolving regulatory area.

Paddy Tipping: I suspect that the Minister is coming to the end of his speech, and I have been waiting for the answer to the question that I have wanted to ask. Will he say something about visual display units? There has been a lot of discussion about VDUs, and some parts of Government are very keen on them, but it makes no sense to introduce them if domestic customers are going to have access to smart metering in the relatively near future. What is the present view on VDUs?

Malcolm Wicks: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We have listened to many people outside the House, and they believe that the main thrust must be the development of the more sophisticated smart meter technology. However, there will be voluntary agreements with the supply companies in respect of VDUs.
	It is also worth noting that, as part of finalising our decision on a roll-out to domestic consumers, we would also like the opportunity to take account of the smart metering trials that will produce initial results later this year. I believe that these amendments will successfully enable the roll-out of smart meters. They are an important step forward in fulfilling our ambition, set out in the 2007 energy White Paper, to improve the information that energy customers receive about their energy use.
	I therefore hope that colleagues in the House will lend their support to these Government amendments.

Charles Hendry: I thank the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. They are not everything that we asked for, but they show progress from where we were in Committee. We welcome with great enthusiasm any sinner who repents.
	The case for smart meters is as strong as ever. Their introduction is supported by the industry, and overwhelmingly by consumer groups, as smart meters will get rid of prepayment meters and estimates forever. There is also great support from the environmental groups, thanks to the important contribution that smart meters can make to tackling energy inefficiency.
	We think that the Government should have gone further. We would have liked them to insert a specified time scale of 10 years for the introduction of smart meters across the whole country. However, the fall-back position adopted in Committee was that the Government should table an amendment with permissive powers to avoid the need for primary legislation in due course. They have done that, so perhaps we should give the Minister not three cheers, or two, but one and a half cheers for what he has achieved.
	One day in Committee, the Minister told us that he would be going home to fit his own electronic display device. He said that the EDD was in its box in the cupboard, and that we had shamed him into going home and fitting it that very weekend. We expressed our concern that he might electrocute himself in the process, and we are obviously delighted that he did not do so. Nevertheless, did he summon up the courage to fit it, and has he found the device useful? Many of us share the concern of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) that VDUs are often almost worse than useless and that they distract from what is a very important debate.
	Our view that the Government should have gone further and put in place a time scale is supported by many others. The Energy Saving Trust's briefing to us states:
	We welcome the amendments put down by the Government to facilitate this, but believe the Government needs to go further. Without Government mandating of full smart metering, the carbon saving potential of these devices will not be fully realised.
	The Government's policy has changed. In Committee, the Minister made it clear that he was not persuaded that the overall benefits of smart meters outweighed the disadvantages, as he saw them. He could not tell us whether primary or secondary legislation would be required. It is thus clear that there has been a change in the Government's thinking, which we are pleased about.
	In November 2007, the Prime Minister said:
	For every household over the next decade there will be the offer of a smart meter that will allow two-way communication between the supplier and customer, giving more accurate bills of course and making it easier for people to generate their own energy through micro generation and sell it on to the grid.
	That is not what the Minister is talking about today. That was clearly not the EDD, because that does not allow two-way communication. What did the Prime Minister mean when he made that statement? The Minister seems to be rowing back from the 10-year commitment.
	It is clear from those in the industry and others that if this is going to happen, there must be a clear mandate from the Government. The Energy Retail Association's advice to us stated:
	If the ambition to have all homes in Britain fitted with smart meters is to be achieved, the process of planning needs to begin sooner rather than later. In order to achieve the Government's stated expectation that smart meters will be rolled out to every British home within ten years, the industry needs a mandate...It must commit now to a clear timetable and ensure that a decision is made quickly to grant the mandate.
	There is concern about the Government's lack of leadership. This morning, about an hour or so before we entered the Chamber, we received the response to the consultation documentI suppose it is better to have it at that stage than not at all. There are areas in the response where we would have looked for more leadership from the Government, rather than just suggestions about a need for further consultation. Indeed, the opening paragraphs of the document suggest that the Government have moved the goalposts since the Prime Minister's suggestion last November, because they say:
	Views were also invited on the Government's expectation that over the next ten years, all domestic gas and electricity customers will be given smart meters with visual displays and on how smart metering could be delivered to smaller businesses.
	That was not what the Prime Minister said. He said that this would be delivered to domestic consumers within 10 years.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the industry wants leadership, a mandate and clarity from the Government so that it can implement the introduction of smart meters on a level playing field and ensure that the meters are usable by all suppliers, and thus do not act as a barrier to the market? He might have heard that the industry estimates that this could save domestic consumers about 4 billion a year. Does he agree it is important that the industry is heard and provided with the direction that it requests from the Government, which would be at no cost to the Government but of great benefit to consumers and the environment?

Charles Hendry: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Not only the industry but consumer groups believe that there could be big savings for consumers. Environmental groups believe that smart metering would represent good environmental practice. There is overwhelming support for smart metering as the right way forward, so we need greater leadership from the Government.
	The consultation document shows that there was overwhelming support for introducing smart metering for larger and medium-sized businesses. The Government have taken on board that support and say, under the heading Next steps:
	The Government intends to...undertake a further short consultation in May.
	Having got overwhelming support, they will consult further on the detail.
	As we know, there was strong support among smaller businesses and domestic users. The Government say:
	Exercising these powers in relation to small businesses and the domestic sector will be dependent on the outcome of further analysis and impact assessment work.
	That was what we thought this process was about, and we need further progress.
	The document also says:
	Further discussions with stakeholders on the consultation impact assessment and in the areas identified above will take place over the next few months to further refine the impact assessment and define the policy options moving forward.
	Ministers do not seem to understand that we do not have time on our side. If we have to wait until the end of this year, a further year will have been lost during which a range of households could have benefited and reductions in carbon emissions could have been brought about through better informed household choices. It is disappointing that the programme is being put off.

Alan Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that smart meters could play an important role in dealing with fuel poverty, for example by ending overcharging because of prepayment meters and dealing with back-charging through changing tariffs because of the way in which smart meters work? Perhaps that is a further imperative in support of early adoption.
	Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the sunset provision in new clause 8 that requires changes under subsection (1) of the new clause to take place before five years are up? Will he suggest to the Minister that that could be considered as some sort of time scale for ensuring that consultations on the implementation of such a programme end urgently and early?

Charles Hendry: I said earlier that one of the great advantages of the programme was that it could lead to the end of prepayment meters. One of the reasons that it is so strongly supported by Energywatch is that it could make a massive improvement to the service offered to domestic consumers, especially those in fuel poverty. I should say, as an aside, that it is very sad that the Bill does not address fuel poverty. Although the Bill gives us the perfect opportunity to do so, fuel poverty has been excluded completely.
	The hon. Gentleman refers to a sunset provision. We need progress within those five years. That is not the time scale in which we will see action, but that in which the Government need to make a decision, and that is an enormous way off. We do not have time on our side, if we are to stand any chance of meeting our 2020 commitments, so we need the programme to move forward more quickly. That is why we support the view of the industry and others that 10 years would have been a sensible time scale. The Government are giving us the smack of firm consultation, but we need decision making and progress. We accept that the new clause represents movement in the right direction, but it is still disappointing that the Minister has not gone further.
	New clause 16 is one of several measures that we tabledsadly, it was the only one selectedthat would give consumers more information so that they were able to make better choices. I am certain that consumers want to do more.

Malcolm Wicks: I was rather hoping that the hon. Gentleman was going to address the costs of smart meters. It is not unreasonable for the Government, when faced with the indubitable advantages and benefits of smart meters, nevertheless to address costs seriously. As I said, we need to refine the costs, and we will discuss them with the industry, which will have different ideas. This is clearly a costly national project, so does he not agree that it would be irresponsible for the Government not to pay heed to the costs, not least at a time when our constituents are worried about rising energy bills?

Charles Hendry: Of course we have to pay heed to the costs, but what is frustrating is the speed at which that is being done. The issue has been addressed in the House on many occasions. On Second Reading, I think that every single Member who spoke talked about smart meters and the need for progress. We find that the next consultation will not conclude until the end of the year, but we simply do not have time on our side.
	Yes, there is a debate to be had. Centrica's submission to us cited research carried out by Frontier Economics showing that there was a positive cost-benefit to the consumer through the roll-out of smart meters of 3.5 billion by 2020 owing to the energy savings that would be made. The figures are out there and views have been formed. It should now be quite simple for the Minister, in a short space of time, to reach a decision rather than simply knock the issue into the long grass. That is why the frustration arises. I would not wish to disappoint the Minister by not addressing issues that he would like me to consider, but it behoves the Government to speed up the process.
	The purpose of new clause 16 is to help consumers to make better informed choices. They want to do more, but they often feel disempowered because they do not know enough and do not have enough information on which to base decisions. We have argued that they should have more information about how much of their energy bill goes on environmental taxes and charges, so that they know what proportion of their bill relates to renewables obligation certificates, the carbon emissions reduction target and the European emissions trading scheme. The Government blocked an amendment that would have allowed that, and we remain disappointed that they do not seem to want consumers to have more information.
	New clause 16 is on a separate issue: it would require energy companies to state on people's energy bills the volume of CO2 emitted in generating the energy for the consumer in the period in question. If the consumer bought green electricity only, the figure would be zero, but if the electricity was generated from coal-fired power stations or came from elsewhere, a much higher figure would be given. That would enable the consumer to say to their supplier, I want to switch to a company that will produce less CO2. The figure will, almost by definition, be a bit of an approximation, as we cannot expect the amount to be worked out to the hour for every consumer, but it would mean that suppliers consulted the people who generated the energy, and looked at the sources from which the power was generated over a period. They would then produce a total figure, which could be divided by the number of consumers. That would give the consumer information enabling them to make an informed choice.
	Of course, if the measure were taken forward, there are issues that would need to be addressed. For example, how would nuclear be assessed? Would the whole lifetime carbon costs of any construction be considered, or would we consider only the carbon produced in the course of generation? How would energy transported to this country through the French interconnector be assessed? However, those questions do not detract from the valuable contribution that the measure would make to enabling people to make informed choices. We want people to tackle waste and improve the energy efficiency of their homes. We should actively seek to make people do more in those respects, and to make them switch to less polluting electricity suppliers, but at the moment, unless they have a purely green supplier, they simply have no idea of how that is to be done. New clause 16 is a simple measure that would make such a switch possible.
	We should not say that the measure is too complicated, because Tesco announced yesterday that it would set out the carbon footprint for 30 of its products as a prelude to doing so much more widely. If that can be done for a packet of beans, a punnet of strawberries or whatever is on the Minister's shopping list for when he sits down to watch the football match tonight, it can be done for electricity bills, too. I hope that the Minister takes that point. On smart meters, I give him one and a half cheers for recognising that a provision addressing the issue should be included in the Bill, but there is still disappointment about the fact that he has not gone further.

Stephen Ladyman: I will not detain the House long. The hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) is being a little churlish in offering only one and a half cheers; I think that my hon. Friend the Minister listened very carefully to our debate in Committee and has responded far more fully than I expected him to, so he should get more than one and a half cheers.
	I want to reiterate a point that I made in Committee. A smart meter will certainly allow a person to choose between tariffs by providing them with the information that they need if they are to make that choice, but because of the way in which the electricity and gas retailing industry works, they would be making a choice between the tariffs offered by a particular company. If someone wants to change companies, they have to work out who has the cheapest tariff. They may have to go online to the website of a company such as uSwitch and enter their details and information about their energy usage; uSwitch will then tell them which the cheapest energy supplier would be, and the person could then sign up with that company. I do not want to do that in future; I want a smart meter that does it for me.
	I want a smart meter that I can hand over to a company such as uSwitch, so that it could monitor the energy retailing industry for me and change my tariff and supplier every week or month, or whenever appropriate. I do not want to have to do the work any longer. Why should I, when I have a computer built into my energy meter that should be doing that work for me? My question to my hon. Friend is whether the amendments before us go so far as to make that practicable, so that companies such as uSwitch can decide to step into the market and extend their range of products. According to my reading of the amendments, they probably do allow that to happen, but I would like confirmation from my hon. Friend that my reading is accurate, and I would also like confirmation that when the consultation takes place over the next few months, the need for such a service will be taken into account so that energy retailers are not allowed to block the entry into the market of companies that can provide us with such a service.

Steve Webb: I think that the hon. Gentleman's reading is right; new clause 3, which is in the group of amendments that we are considering, and which I hope the Government will accept, provides that the regulations on smart meters must include a provision allowing a smart meter to be a friend in the cupboard, or on the mantelpiece, that facilitates switching for the consumer. The hon. Gentleman might have heard a lengthy advocacy of that exact principle in Committee, and I am delighted to hear that point reflected in today's debate; I welcome that.
	Along with others who have spoken, we very much welcome the Government's new clause 8. As the numbering of the new clauses suggests, we had already tabled new clause 1, which tries to do very much the same thing as new clause 8. We are not too worried about the finer points of the drafting differences between the two. As new clause 8 has the Minister's imprimatur, we are happy to defer to him, and not to pursue new clause 1, with one reservation: as the amendment paper shows, when we tabled new clause 1, we included a time scale. That point has already been touched on. The five-year time scale referred to in Government new clause 8 means that there will be five years before the starting whistle is blown, and before things might start to happen. The idea that the clock is ticking is important in the context of climate change. If we are shortly to have binding targets for reaching our 2020 and 2050 climate change goals, another year or two, or five, matters. It is the lack of urgency that disturbs us. Let me read a statement of the Government's policy:
	Following our consultation on billing and metering, the Government intends to roll forward a package of measures in Great Britain which will change the way in which energy use is communicated to customers.
	One might assume that that came out this week, but in fact it was said a year ago in the energy White Paper of May 2007. The consultation on billing and metering referred to is the previous consultation, and not the most recent consultation or the next consultation. We feel that a line has to be drawn.
	I accept that the Government have a trial under way, and there is an argument for saying that we should let the trial finish. However, the statement of May 2007 was written when the trial had barely begun, so it is hard to argue that we need extra time for the trial to run when, over a year ago, before the Government had any clues about how the trial was going, they were already giving undertakings. The Minister cannot have it both ways.
	As the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) said, the document that was circulated todaywe appreciate the help given by the Minister's office in that regardsays that, in summary, the Government's plan, in response to the consultation, is
	to complete further economic assessment work and consultation to finalise policy position.
	One wonders what the Government are waiting for. What do they think that they will find out after another six or nine months of dithering that they could not find out in the previous 12 months of dithering? What is the delay? The conclusion of the response to the consultation says:
	Given the complexity of the issues and the number of variables involved, the Government wishes to discuss further...We have therefore published...a consultation impact assessment
	that is a new one to me
	on a roll out...and invite comments.
	I wonder whether there will be a Government response to the consultation impact assessment, which was the Government's response to the consultation, which followed another consultation. Perhaps then there will be a period of public engagement, reflection and consideration. Can we not just get on with it?
	I have been trying to work out why the Government do not want to get on with it, and whether the Minister has caught the ditheritis that comes from the top of Government. I looked back to our deliberations in Committee on 11 March, which was the last time that I challenged the Minister to get on with it. He intervened on me to ask, apropos of smart meters,
	Does he not recognise that by rushing the process
	rushing? Chance would be a fine thing
	there is a danger that we could to install the wrong technology? [Official Report, Energy Public Bill Committee, 11 March 2008; c. 581.]
	I do not know whether the Minister has ever bought a computer; I sense that he may never have done so. There is always a danger of buying the wrong technology, and that something better will come round the corner.
	Surely there are plenty of examples of working technology out there. It is not staggeringly new. We have a rough idea of how it would all work. The fact that the Government have had a trial of smart meters going for well over a year suggests that it is not cutting edge, alien technology. It is in use in other countries as well, so the technology is not

Alan Whitehead: Although I go along with the hon. Gentleman in his suggestion that it is important that rapid progress is made between the consultation and the implementation of smart meter technology, his computer analogy assumes that a choice is made within a common operating system. Does he accept that one of the issues in smart meter roll-out must be to ensure that meters are interoperable and interchangeable, and are not the creature of the company that installed them? It is therefore necessary to get that process right.

Steve Webb: I agree that we need interoperability and that we need to get the process right, but I do not see why another 12 months, 18 months or any other period of consultation and dithering will make that any more likely. We know that now and we knew it 12 months ago, so let us get on with setting the common standards to which all companies would have to adhere. Why was Ofgem not asked to do that 12 months ago? I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the goal. I do not understand the delay.
	Why is it so important that we get on with the task? We have heard some of the advantages of smart meters, but probably not all of them. One that has been understated so far in the debate is the potential for load shifting. If we are thinking about the difficult question of our future energy supply and security, and a structure that will match the peaks of demand that occur, and potentially thinking about a future when we might, for example, be charging up our cars overnight, the importance of load shifting will become greater and greater.
	If we can use smart meter technology to ensure that we do not need quite so much total capacity in the system because of a very small number of very high peaksif we can do something about the peaksthat will have a profound public benefit for the infrastructure that we need. The cost-benefit analysis of smart meters should take that into account. The benefit would not just be private and personal; the entire public infrastructure would benefit from much greater incentives for load shifting. That has not been factored in sufficiently.
	We heard mention of fuel poverty. Certainly, we do not want people in fuel poverty to get estimated bills, especially when those are overestimated. The hon. Member for Wealden suggested that smart meters would bring an end to prepayment meters. That is not my understanding. Some consumers choose prepayment because that is the way they prefer to budget and, as I understand it, that method of payment would continue. The meters would not have slots, like the old fashioned ones had, but charging up a plastic card to obtain credit will still be an option when smart meters are up and running.
	The key is to ensure that the tariffs are right. A set of the fuel poor or vulnerable households or a similar category of people could be identified, and smart metering technology could be used to ensure that they were automatically on the best tariff that the given company offered, or the best tariff. That comes back to the point about switching, to which I shall return.
	Another aspect of fuel poverty and smart metering that we have not thought about is one of the arguments advanced by the companies. When they are told to target the vulnerable, they do not know who the vulnerable are. The Government know who the vulnerable are, and I have suggested in the past that the Government might once a year send a letter to everyone on pension credit, for example, with a certificate that they could show to their energy supplier to claim entitlement to its best tariff.
	In the world of smart metering we could go one better. Central Government could simply issue to the smart meter the eligibility switch. In other words, there could be a mechanism whereby, since the meters can receive data as well as send data, they could receive information that the householder was entitled to the social tariff, whatever it happened to be. It is another way in which the fuel poor could be targeted, which we struggle to do at present.

Stephen Ladyman: Smart meters could go one step further and allocate the fuel poor and the social tariffs among the companies, so that all the companies were paying a fair share of the burden of meeting the needs of vulnerable people.

Steve Webb: The companies are certainly not paying a fair share at present, so that is an interesting suggestion.
	We have seen the potential of smart meters for load shifting and for alleviating fuel poverty. The climate change potential through CO2 savings has been mentioned, although it is possible to overstate those savings. There is some evidence that there is a one-off shift, but it is slightly less clear that the effect is ongoing. Whatever sort of smart metering we have, we clearly need a visual display that is compatible with a smart meter, rather than a clip-on device, so that people have the best possible and most accessible information about their consumption and about the CO2 emissions to encourage them to think harder about cutting back.
	I have a killer fourth point in my notes, which I cannot read. I shall come back to it.

Malcolm Wicks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Steve Webb: Yes, that would be good.

Malcolm Wicks: I like to be kind. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt think of the fourth point. Whether it turns out to be a killer point or not will be for the House to judge.
	May I ask the hon. Gentleman, as I asked the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), to address the issue of costs? I know that opposition is the art of rhetoric and eloquence unencumbered by economics, but there are serious cost issues involved. We are talking about a major roll-out to every householder. We want that to happen, but I do not apologise for the fact that the Government must consider the cost issues. Even the Liberal Democrats must consider cost issues.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the Minister for paying tribute to my eloquence. That is very decent of him. As an economist, I have never been accused of being unencumbered by economicsau contraire.
	We heard from the hon. Member for Wealden that for individual smart meters the costs are modest, relative to the potential savings to the consumer. So the consumer gets a benefit, the companies clearly get a substantial benefit on billing and so forth, society gets a benefit in terms of CO2 emissions, load shifting and microgenerationmy crucial fourth point, to which I shall return. Bringing that all together, it is hard to see why the Government's cost-benefit analysis is so at variance with everybody else's. Given that Government money is not involved, I do not understand what the agenda is or the internal DBERR politics.

Malcolm Wicks: I assume that if there are net costs, as I believe there will be, they will be passed on to the consumer. It may not be public spending, but at a time of rising energy costs we must have regard to that. I am a supporter of smart meters and I predict that they will be rolled out for householders, but we need to refine the costs and see what the difference is between ourselves and industry on those cost estimates. Many of the advantages are, in a sense, hypotheses. We hope behaviour will follow those, but we must ground it in some estimate of net costs.

Steve Webb: Indeed, we need to be realistic about costs. Climate change and fuel poverty are urgent imperatives, and because of the delay, industry is wasting huge amounts of money and passing that on to consumers. The Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) that over 2 million metersroughly 5 per cent.are replaced each year. The further delay between now, when we hoped for a decision, and Christmas, when we might get one, means that another 2 million meters will quickly be obsolete. That is waste as well, which has to be paid for by consumers. I doubt whether the Government's cost-benefit analysis factors that in. There is a net benefit to the companies, the consumer and the wider society, and the sooner we get to that point, the better.
	The fourth advantage relates to microgeneration, which we will deal with more fully in the next group of amendments. The ability to measure accurately what has been generated on a micro scale, exported to the grid and so on is integral to some of the issues that will be covered in the next group of amendments. All that is on hold while we dither about smart metering.
	New clause 3 deals with what I call your friend on the mantelpiece. We know that there are sets of consumers who switch. We know that, on average, they are the IT literate and the better off. The people least likely to switch are the fuel poor, the urban poor, the very elderly and frailpeople who do not get on with technology. Now that the Government have accepted that they will be making regulations about what smart meters must do, new clause 3 proposes that one of those should be to do the shopping around for the consumer. That is what I suggested in Committee and I am delighted that the Minister accepts that principle.
	I am happy to discuss the fine detail of how that works, whether it involves switching every second or every quarter, and the way that that is finessed. However, the principle of relying on consumers, even with display units, to take the information to the internet seems one step too many for the most vulnerable. The Minister asked me whether the technology was feasible when we debated this issue in Committee. The technology seems self-evidently integral to smart metering; the meters can receive and send data. Once there is interoperabilityan essential prerequisitethat will be done in a standard format. The smart meter should be able to go to the internet and check, on the basis of the person's individual consumption, for the best package and tariff. That seems to be a win-win situation.
	Rather than there being regulators investigating the industry to see whether it is competitive, why do we not just make it competitive? Why do we not put every consumer in charge? What I suggest is the ultimate in putting consumers in charge and making the companies respond. The companies would have to innovate, because those out of line on tariffs would lose custom dramatically. There would be opportunity for niche marketing, because each smart meter would base its choice on the individual consumer's actual consumption patterns and firms would have an incentive to match tariffs to people's actual consumption patterns. That could revolutionise the industry.
	It is the paucity of vision in new clause 8 that bothers me. We could do this thing in a completely different way, and we are missing that opportunity. Through new clause 3, we are seeking the Minister's assurances that when specifications for what smart meters have to do are set out, they will include the proposals in our new clause.
	New clause 3 mentions the
	tariff which is most to the householder's advantage.
	What constitutes an advantage might be interpreted in a variety of ways; some might want to use the smart meter to find the best green tariff, for example. However, the point would be that the digital divide in respect of the poor would cease to apply. That is one of the big problems with the whole presumption that one of the answers to fuel poverty is that poor people should switch. We know that, in general, poor people do not switch. They do not have the information. I still find my fuel bills baffling, and I regard myself as moderately sophisticated on such matters. It is unrealistic to expect the fuel poor to tackle fuel poverty by constantly shopping around online or by any other means. The smart meters could do that for themand the sooner that they are in place, the better.

Michael Weir: I was somewhat alarmed by the image, put forward by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), of meters that switched regularly between suppliers and got people the best tariff. That sounds wonderful in theory, but the hon. Gentleman's experience of switching might be different from mine. I am not sure that I would like my meter to change my direct debit or credit card charges. That is the big problem with what the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) has suggested.
	If a meter switches regularly by the second or minute, how would we deal with the billing? The fuel poor do not switch because, as the hon. Gentleman said, they are not familiar with the technology, but if someone is getting a blizzard of different bills from different companies for different sections of their energy use, that would make matters worse. We should not be looking for a brave new world of smart meters that goes beyond what is realistic in respect of what people can deal with. We must bring the issue back to that position.

Stephen Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is making a good point. It is exactly why I used as an exemplar an agent such as uSwitch, which is not an energy retailer but acts on behalf of the individual purchaser. In other words, the consumer would pay some money through such an agent, which would deal with such things; their bank account details would not be switched.
	I am looking for the legislation to be permissive, so that when the details get worked out, the necessary agents are in place and the mechanisms for doing the switching are devised, it will be possible, through this legislation, to make those things happen. I do not want us to have to say, Well, we could do this now, but the primary legislation does not allow it and we will have to wait for another energy Bill to come along.

Michael Weir: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, although I am not sure that putting a middle man in the energy market will necessarily make things better. I merely make the point that we should be considering what can realistically be done. I do not often say this, but I agree with the Minister's approach on this issue. New clause 8 gives a permissive power for the meters to be installed; importantly, subsection (3) gives the power for the technical specifications of meters to be included. That was the point that I made in my earlier interventionit is vital that, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said, the meters should be interoperative and that different companies do not run different meters that cannot easily switch.
	I notice that all the energy companies support smart meters. I have been to many demonstrations of smart meters and seen many press releases and other papers from the energy companies demanding that the Government show leadership on the issue. I understand that there has to be a national roll-out, but the cynical part of me wonders whether the energy companies are seeking to pin the blame on someone else for the associated increased costs. We should be careful about that: smart meters should be a way of helping people, not of raising costs and pinning the blame on politicians for rising energy costs. There is a danger that that could happen.
	Having said that, I support smart meters and their roll-out. There is a difference between electricity and gas smart meters. I understand that it is much easier to have an electricity smart meter than a gas one, and I wonder whether we should concentrate on electricity in the first roll-out to get the policy moving and show that the system works. The issue is important because of the many things that smart meters can do.
	Energywatch gave a briefing for this debate that called for a swift roll-out of smart meters. It made the point that such meters would mean that
	suppliers no longer have any excuses for charging the 5.8 million prepayment meter...customers more for their energy than consumers paying by other methods.
	The briefing notes that
	PPM customers are paying on average 215 a year more than customers who can access cheaper online tariffs and, in the most extreme case some consumers could find themselves paying as much as 452 extra each year.
	Such a sum is very substantial to someone in fuel poverty. Energywatch also says that
	In the last year alone more than 63 per cent. of the total PPMs installed were put in by companies to recover energy debt...At present 1,000 PPMs are being installed every day to recover a debt, meaning consumers are repaying debt at the highest rates.
	Anything that smart meters can do to deal with that problem would be very welcome.
	Smart meters would also mean an end to estimated billing. That is interesting; sometimes, I wonder why the energy companies are so keen on that. I pay for my energy by direct debit, and the company comes along every year and says that for the next year, my payments will be x or y. Obviously, I am out most of the day and there are a lot of estimated readings. We phone the companies or go online to tell them the correct reading; in my experience, whether they take note of that or not is another matter.
	None the less, the companies come along every year and try to up the direct debits, despite the fact that in my experience people are mostly in credit at the end of the year. That comes back to the need for consumers to show great care in looking at their energy bills and what the energy companies are doing. Basically, there is a lot of overcharging by various means on the part of the energy companies. I would love a smart meter to deal with all those problems and ensure that we pay only for the energy that we use, and at the cheapest possible tariff. However, I have to be realistic. I understand that the roll-out will take time. It is more important that we get the issue right than get it quickly, although we should get it as quickly as possible. Interoperability is the one thing that we must ensure is present when we roll out the system.

Malcolm Wicks: I am grateful to hon. Members for their new clauses. This has been a useful debate which has teased out some of the crucial issues and raised some interesting and novel ideas.
	The Government new clause on smart metering represents the most appropriate way forward. Following the guarded support of the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) for where we are, I now have one and a half reasons to be cheerful. I am grateful for that as progress of sorts. We are all in agreement about the wide range of potential benefits for energy suppliers and business and domestic customers. We would also agree that in principle we would want those benefits to be delivered as soon as possible. However, we also recognise that a roll-out of smart meters to all energy consumers would be a complex and highly challenging project, and with one opportunity to get the legislative framework right. Although the Government intend to move forward with smart metering for medium-sized business, we need to undertake further work with stakeholders fully to understand the costs and benefits of smart meter roll-out to small businesses and the crucial domestic sector before coming to a final view.
	In the context of the policy approach to smart meters that I have described, I must resist new clauses 1 and 3, which seek to specify in the Bill some of the technical details, including the timing of a roll-out and the functions of a meter. At this stage, we need to maintain flexibility in defining some of the details while we complete our analysis and work with stakeholders to identify the optimum, most cost-effective roll-out. I make no apology for being worried about cost-effectiveness. I believe that this is the best approach as we develop our understanding of this evolving regulatory arena. That is one of the key differences in our approach and one of the reasons why I am resisting hon. Members' new clauses.
	The additional parliamentary scrutiny provided for in new clause 9 is another important difference between Government amendments and those tabled by hon. Members, although I am sure that they agree that our scrutiny is important. The Government new clause means that we can move forward with smart metering for medium-sized businesses now and, subject to further analysis and informal consultation, be in a position to act as quickly as possible to roll out smart meters to the small business and domestic sector should our final analysis support that, as I hope that it will.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), very much in agreement with the Liberal Democrat spokesman, had some intriguing ideas about how the smart meter could become the smartest of meters and the smartest of friends to the consumer in identifying, whether on a minute-by-minute or a daily basis, the best option for the householder.

Chris Mullin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Malcolm Wicks: YesI welcome my hon. Friend to the debate.

Chris Mullin: Does my hon. Friend agree that there could be such a thing as a too-smart meter, just as one could have such a thing as a too-smart-by-half Liberal Democrat?

Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend missed my resolution not to be mean to the Liberal Democrats today. I was slightly mean earlier, but I think that I got away with it.
	We are not aware of approaches or technologies that would allow for quite the sort of approach suggested, but I will make further inquiries. The hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) wondered why, technically, it could not be possible. I wondered at one stage whether it could mean that at one time we all got our electricity from one company and half an hour later we got it from another company. We have heard about different niche markets, but I am not sure what the market implications of that might be. However, it is an interesting idea and I will consider it further.
	Hon. Members have talked about our approach, and I have noticed that dithering seems to be a favourite word in the Opposition's political vocabulary. I do not recognise that. Since the energy White Paper, we have undertaken a consultation and published a significant body of impact assessment work. We have tabled an amendment to the Bill, which we are discussing, and we have already announced our intention to move forward for medium-sized businesses. I make no apology for considering the cost-effectiveness of the measure as well as the benefits. I therefore hope that hon. Members will feel able to support the Government new clause and will not press theirs to a vote.
	New clause 16, in the name of the hon. Member for Wealden, seeks to increase transparency for consumers by requiring energy suppliers to specify on a consumer's bill the amount of carbon dioxide that has been emitted in the production of the energy attributed to that bill. As the problem of climate change is now a global one, we allconsumers, business and Governmenthave a role to play. Indeed, much of today's debate is about how we enable the citizen to become more active in tackling global warming; it is a feature of the next debate, too. A key element of our strategy to tackle climate change is promoting energy efficiency and crucially, as part of that, engaging the individual. Important examples of the Government's work are the Act on CO2 campaign by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the fact that two thirds of the estimated savings in the 2007 energy White Paper were as a result of energy efficiency measures. However, we must continue to take action to help consumers to understand the choices that they can make about using cleaner energy and reducing the energy they use.
	I support the notions behind new clause 16, but I shall resist it because it would duplicate existing statutory requirements that achieve the same outcome. It might be helpful if we consider this in two partselectricity and gasas they are covered by different statutory requirements. Looking first at electricity, in transposing the electricity directive 2003/54/EC the Government laid the Electricity (Fuel Mix Disclosure) Regulations 2005. I am sure that hon. Members remember those quite intimately. Those regulations inserted a new condition into electricity supply licences requiring suppliers to provide information on or with the consumer's energy bill, and in promotional materials, about the environmental impact of the electricity supplied in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. I hope that hon. Members will therefore accept that the requirement for suppliers to provide the specified information in relation to electricity is already accounted for.
	The issue of carbon dioxide emissions from gas is somewhat different. Carbon emissions from electricity supplied should result in greater awareness of the relative carbon intensity of different generating technologies, which in turn might incentivise switching among consumers. However, information on carbon emissions from gas supplied would not have the same effect, because gas supplied will have the same carbon emissions regardless of who supplies itthat is, 0.185 kg of CO2 per kilowatt hour of gas consumed. The information could incentivise more efficient use of energy by consumers. However, there is already a statutory requirement that has the same effectthe requirement for energy suppliers to provide historical information on consumers' bills to help them to understand how much energy they have used. Since we published the energy White Paper last year, the six major energy suppliers have included historical energy usage data on all consumers' bills. That shows consumers, in graphical form, the amount of energy that they have used compared with the same period in the previous yearsomething that the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) might study at his leisure.
	I am pleased to confirm to the House that having laid the Electricity and Gas (Billing) Regulations 2008 before Parliament earlier this year, we are in the process of cementing that voluntary arrangement in statute. Provisions in those regulations, alongside requirements under the 2005 regulations, mean that I am confident that we have the right statutory requirements on suppliers to enable increased consumer awareness and to incentivise action at an individual level.
	Having said that, I listened with great care to the case put again by the hon. Member for Wealden following our discussions in Committee. I have thought through the issues and, notwithstanding my confidence in what I have just said, I wonder whether we should be doing more. I do not think that we need to do more in the Bill, but I would like to discuss these issues with the supply companies to see whether the material that we get in our bills deals with the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised so well. I rather suspect that we can go further in a cost-effective way, not by trying to itemise CO2 for every constituency, but by sending the consumer general material about carbon emissions, and perhaps reminding them that, as we tackle carbon emissions, extra costs will be incurred through such things as the renewables obligation.
	Given what I have said, I am not sure that we are in the right place. We could go further in voluntary agreements, and we will take into account the way in which the hon. Member for Wealden has spoken to his new clause, as I am sure will the supply companies. Having said that, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider not pressing the motion, which we have discussed thoroughly, to a Division.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9
	  
	Power to amend licence conditions: procedure

'(1) Before making a modification, the Secretary of State must consult
	(a) the holder of any licence being modified,
	(b) the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, and
	(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
	(2) Subsection (1) may be satisfied by consultation before, as well as by consultation after, the passing of this Act.
	(3) Before making modifications, the Secretary of State must lay a draft of the modifications before Parliament.
	(4) If, within the 40-day period, either House of Parliament resolves not to approve the draft, the Secretary of State may not take any further steps in relation to the proposed modifications.
	(5) If no such resolution is made within that period, the Secretary of State may make the modifications in the form of the draft.
	(6) Subsection (4) does not prevent a new draft of proposed modifications being laid before Parliament.
	(7) The Secretary of State must publish details of any modifications as soon as reasonably practicable after they are made.
	(8) In this section 40-day period, in relation to a draft of proposed modifications, means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft is laid before Parliament (or, if it is not laid before each House of Parliament on the same day, the later of the two days on which it is laid).
	(9) For the purposes of calculating the 40-day period, no account is to be taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than 4 days.
	(10) In this section modification means a modification under section [ Power to amend licence conditions: smart meters].'. [Malcolm Wicks.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10
	  
	Smart meters: supplemental

'(1) A modification under section [Power to amend licence conditions: smart meters] of part of a standard condition of a licence does not prevent any other part of the condition from continuing to be regarded as a standard condition for the purposes of Part 1 of the Gas Act 1986 (c. 44) or Part 1 of the Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29).
	(2) Where the Secretary of State makes modifications under section [Power to amend licence conditions: smart meters](1)(b) or (d) of the standard conditions of a licence of any type, the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority must
	(a) make the same modification of those standard conditions for the purposes of their incorporation in licences of that type granted after that time, and
	(b) publish the modification.
	(3) The Secretary of State may by order make such modifications of provision made by or under an Act or an Act of the Scottish Parliament (whenever passed or made) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of provision made under section [Power to amend licence conditions: smart meters].'. [Malcolm Wicks.]
	 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4
	  
	Tariffs for renewable energy

'(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations within one year of the passing of this Act with the purpose of requiring designated energy suppliers to introduce a renewable energy tariff for specified producers of renewable energy.
	(2) In this section
	renewable energy tariff means the reward level for each kilowatt hour of energy produced by the renewable source;
	renewable source has the same meaning as in the Utilities Act 2000 (c.27);
	renewable energy means energy from renewable sources;
	renewables obligation means the obligation specified in section 32 of the Electricity Act 1989 (c.29);
	specified means specified in the regulations.
	(3) The renewable energy tariff shall set the reward level for each kilowatt hour of energy produced by the renewable source and may
	(a) be set at different levels for different levels for different types of renewable source;
	(b) apply to metered energy produced or to metered energy exported onto public gas or electricity networks;
	(c) apply to sizes of renewable sources specified in the regulations;
	(d) be varied at different times as prescribed in the order or in successive orders;
	(e) make provision for the payment and incidence of the costs of connection of small-scale generators to public networks.
	(4) The descriptions of energy supplier upon which an order may impose the payment of a renewable energy tariff are those supplying electricity or gas
	(a) in Great Britain;
	(b) in England and Wales;
	(c) in Scotland; or
	(d) in Northern Ireland
	excluding such categories of supplier as are specified.
	(5) The regulations shall specify
	(a) the renewable sources in respect of which renewable energy tariffs shall apply;
	(b) the tariff applicable to each renewable source;
	(c) the maximum level of electricity generation in respect of which the renewable energy tariff shall apply;
	(d) which persons and installations generating from renewable sources shall be eligible for the renewable energy tariff, and any provisions to exclude installations accredited under the renewables obligation;
	(e) the terms and duration of the renewable energy tariff arrangements;
	(f) how the amount of energy produced and upon which the renewable energy tariff is payable shall be measured, determined or deemed;
	(g) provisions for the regulation of renewable energy tariff arrangements by a designated body;
	(h) provision for the Secretary of State to report periodically on the effectiveness of the regulations made hereunder;
	(i) any necessary amendment to distribution licences or supply licences held by any person; and
	(j) such other provisions as may be required for the efficient, cost-effective and transparent operation of the renewable energy tariff.
	(6) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult
	(a) the Authority;
	(b) the energy suppliers to whom the proposed order may apply;
	(c) representatives of renewable energy producers to whom the proposed order would apply; and
	(d) such other persons, if any, as he considers appropriate.
	(7) Regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'. [Alan Simpson.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Alan Simpson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 11 Electricity from hydro-microgeneration
	'(1) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the passing of this Act, make regulations with the purpose of encouraging renewable energy generation by means of hydro-microgeneration.
	(2) In this section
	hydro-microgeneration means the generation of electricity by means of a hydro-turbine of less than 100kW capacity;
	microgeneration plant has the same meaning given in section 7(6) of the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006 (c. 19).
	(3) Regulations under this section may prescribe
	(a) the treatment of hydro-microgeneration under sections 32 to 32M of the Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29);
	(b) licensing for the use of water in a water-course for the purpose of hydro-microgeneration;
	(c) that any requirement for abstraction, transfer or impoundment licences under the
	(i) Water Resources Act 1991 (c. 57),
	(ii) Environment Act 1995 (c. 25), or
	(iii) Water Act 2003 (c. 37)
	is repealed in respect of a hydro-microgeneration plant, provided that no water is removed from the watercourse in the process of generation;
	(d) that any requirement to ensure the safety and welfare of fish in a watercourse on which a hydro-microgeneration plant is situated is proportional to the risk of detriment to the safety and welfare of fish.
	(4) Any reference to the generation of electricity under this or any other act which applies to hydro-microgeneration shall apply as though the reference was to the generation of electricity by means of any hydro-turbine of less than 100kW capacity.
	(5) Regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
	New clause 17 Promotion of renewable energy
	'In section 7(2) of the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 (c. 30), for 60,000,000 substitute 250,000,000.'.
	New clause 20 Access for renewable energy to the electricity and gas grids
	'(1) After section 3A of the 1989 Electricity Act (c.29) there is inserted
	3B Access for renewable energy to the electricity networks
	(1) In carrying out their respective functions, the Secretary of State and the Authority shall ensure that
	(a) transmission system operators and distribution system operators guarantee the transmission and distribution of electricity produced from renewable energy sources, without prejudice to the maintenance of the reliability and safety of the grid;
	(b) transmission system operators and distribution system operators provide for priority access to the grid system for electricity produced from renewable energy sources;
	(c) when dispatching electricity generating installations, transmission system operators shall give priority to generating installations using renewable energy sources insofar as the security of the national electricity system permits;
	(d) transmission system operators and distribution system operators are required to set up and publish their standard rules relating to the bearing and sharing of costs of technical adaptations, including grid connections and grid reinforcements, which are necessary in order to integrate new producers feeding electricity produced from renewable energy sources into the interconnected grid, and that such rules
	(i) shall be based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria taking particular account of all the costs and benefits associated with the connection of these producers to the grid and of the particular circumstances of producers located in peripheral regions and in regions of low population density,
	(ii) may provide for different types of connection, and
	(iii) shall provide for the sharing of costs to be enforced by a mechanism based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria taking into account the benefits which initially and subsequently connected producers as well as transmission system operators and distribution system operators derive from connections;
	(e) transmission system operators and distribution system operators are required to provide any new producer wishing to be connected to the system with a comprehensive and detailed estimate of the costs associated with the connection;
	(f) the charging of transmission and distribution fees does not discriminate against electricity from renewable energy sources, including in particular electricity from renewable energy sources produced in peripheral regions, such as island regions, and in regions of low population density;
	(g) fees charged by transmission system operators and distribution system operators for the transmission and distribution of electricity from plants using renewable energy sources reflect realisable cost benefits resulting from the plant's connection to the network.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall review and take the necessary measures to improve the frameworks and rules for bearing and sharing of costs referred to in paragraph (d) by 30th June 2011 at the latest, and every two years thereafter, in order to ensure the integration of new producers.
	(2) After section 4AA of the Gas Act 1986 (c.44) there is inserted
	4AB Access for renewable gas to the gas networks
	(1) In carrying out their respective functions, the Secretary of State and the Authority shall ensure that
	(a) gas network operators guarantee the transport of gas produced from renewable energy sources, without prejudice to the maintenance of the reliability and safety of the gas networks;
	(b) gas network operators provide for priority access to the gas networks system for gas produced from renewable energy sources;
	(c) when dispatching gas, network operators shall give priority to renewable energy sources insofar as the security of the national gas system permits;
	(d) gas network operators are required to set up and publish their standard rules relating to the bearing and sharing of costs of technical adaptations, such as gas network connections and gas network upgrades, which are necessary in order to integrate new producers feeding gas produced from renewable energy sources in to the interconnected gas networks, and that such rules
	(i) shall be based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria taking particular account of all the costs and benefits associated with the connection of these producers to the gas networks and of the particular circumstances of producers located in peripheral regions and in regions of low population density,
	(ii) may provide for different types of connection, and
	(iii) shall provide for the sharing of costs to be enforced by a mechanism based on objective, transparent and non-discriminatory criteria taking into account the benefits which initially and subsequently connected producers as well as gas network operators derive from the connections;
	(e) gas network operators are required to provide any new producer wishing to be connected to the system with a comprehensive and detailed estimate of the costs associated with the connection;
	(f) the charging of transport fees does not discriminate against gas from renewable energy sources, including in particular gas from renewable energy sources produced in peripheral regions, such as island regions, and in regions of low population density; and
	(g) fees charged by gas network operators for the transport of gas from plants using renewable energy sources reflect realisable cost benefits resulting from the plant's connection to the network.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall review and take the necessary measures to improve the frameworks and rules for bearing and sharing of costs referred to in paragraph (d) by 30th June 2011 at the latest, and every two years thereafter, in order to ensure the integration of new producers.'.
	New clause 21 Adjustment of transmission charges
	'(1) Section 185 of the Energy Act 2004 (c. 20) (Adjustment of transmission charges) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)(a) for first 'a' substitute 'any'.
	(3) Omit subsections (10), (11) and (12).'.
	Amendment No. 1, in clause 36, page 24, line 44, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
	Amendment No. 65, page 69, line 16, leave out clause 78.

Alan Simpson: The Minister for Energy just made the point that we want to empower citizens to take a more active lead in addressing the challenge of climate change and the shift to renewable energy systems. In many ways, new clause 4 specifically addresses that challenge. Internationally, it is arguable that the mechanism it deals with is by far the most effective one for engaging citizens and delivering a dynamic sense of change.
	In presenting this new clause, I begin by giving credit to those who have given enormous support, in the House and outside, to the principle behind it and the commitments we are asking the House to enter into today. There is an astonishing array of supporters of the new clause, including the House Builders Federation, the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, the Federation of Master Builders, the National Farmers Union, the WWF, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Trades Union Congress, Greenpeace, the Country Land and Business Association, the UK Green Building Council, Energywatch, the Energy Saving Trust, the Co-op Groupwhich has clad its own headquarters in solar panelsSharp UK, Solarcentury, National Energy Action, the Solar Trade Association, the Ground Source Heat Pumps Association, and interestingly enough, Lily Allen and The Premises studios.
	In these days of celebrity, it almost becomes obligatory to have a celebrity on board when arguing a worthy cause, but Lily Allen has a fair claim to be recognised as part of that list. She and the company that she is part of in The Premises studios in Hackney, London, have installed an array of about 18 solar panels on the roofsimilar to the array on my homewhich generate the electricity that powers the studios. I know that she has written to all of my parliamentary colleagues to say that such action should not just be the prerogative of those in a position to do it as a matter of principle. The Government should reach out actively to promote it in order to make citizens the drivers of dynamic change.
	In this House, we have to ask how we begin to bridge the gap between UK undertakings and where we need to be by 2020, and how we bridge the gap between where the UK is now and the position of many of our international comparator countries. The international picture is this: almost 50 countries have introduced some sort of feed-in tariff legislation. As a result, most of those countries are well ahead of the UK in delivering a proportion of energy from renewable sources. The UK currently delivers about 2 per cent. of its energy from renewable sources. According to the aspirations that have been teased out from the Bill, it is clear that, at best, the UK will reach a position where it might be delivering 5 per cent. of our energy from renewable sources by 2020. We have entered into an EU commitment to deliver 15 per cent. of our energy from renewable sources by that time. It is quite clear, therefore, that we will need a quantum shift in the policy framework to allow the UK to deliver 15 per cent. of our energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case, but is it not a source of national embarrassment that in order to get an EU average of 20 per cent., the UK has been set a target of only 15 per cent., because we are starting so late and from so far behind? Does that not reinforce his point?

Alan Simpson: It is an embarrassment, and those who have read the Lily Allen letter will recall that it is described as a national disgrace. However, we need to remember that 10 years ago Germany started from a similar position and already, this year, it has exceeded its 2010 targets. It now delivers more than 14 per cent. of its energy from renewable sources, and it has made a step-change transition within the same sort of period that we will have to make one. None of those achievements is outside our reach; the question is whether the achievements are outside our vision. Do we have the political will to make the shift?

Colin Challen: I fully support new clause 4. I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that Germany has gone down that road not just because of climate change or for environmental reasons, but because it wanted a new industrial strategy for creating jobs, wealth and exports without breaching EU state aid rules. Has it not squared the circle?

Alan Simpson: It has squared the circle. When we address costs, it is important that we recognise the phenomenal savings associated with a shift to a feed-in tariff system, and the economic gains that come with it. Germany is an astonishing exemplar of that.
	I paid tribute to organisations outside this House for their support for the new clause. I also want to pay tribute to support that I have had from within the House. More than 100 of my Labour colleagues have added their names to early-day motion 890, which stands in my name. The collaboration on this matter involves all the Opposition parties, including the minority parties. Every single party has come together behind this new clauseit has the blessing of an almost unanimous House.
	I say almost because we come to the stumbling block: the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. So far, we have been unable to persuade the Minister or the civil servants to take the revolutionary step of returning to the House within one year of the passage of this Bill with proposals for feed-in tariff regulations that relate to renewable electricity, heat and gas. I find that sad, because the Government will have it do it anyway. There is a commitment to conduct a review of the microgeneration strategy, and that must report back in six months. During the French presidency, the UK's 15 per cent. target will be defined. Britain will not be allowed to pay someone else to do the job for uswe must do it ourselves. The matter will be forced back on our agenda, and we must determine the policy mechanisms that will allow us to deliver.
	The principal objections that I have heard so far to the new clause are fairly spurious. It is claimed that feed-in tariffs are expensive and that their adoption would somehow mess up the success of the renewables obligation, which Britain introduced six years ago. I shall try to deal with those objections.
	First, those who have been involved in discussions with the German Government do not understand the claims that the feed-in tariff system is expensive. It is less expensive than the intervention measures that the UK Government introduced and are currently in place but which have delivered little. The figures from the German Government for feed-in tariff costs last year show that they contribute approximately 35about 25to the average German household energy bill. If we total the current UK intervention measuresthe climate change levy, climate change agreements, the renewables obligation, the carbon emissions reduction target, contributions from the energy industry and the emissions trading schemethey add more than 150 to the average UK household energy bill and deliver next to nothing.
	The claims that the new clause will mess up the renewables obligation do not stand up either. We could continue with it and the Minister would be free to return in a year with a scheme that did not intrude on support for developing offshore wind, but allowed for a much more imaginative feed-in tariff system relating to a series of initiatives for decentralised energy provision, without which we almost certainly cannot deliver our eco town or eco city aspirations. None is deliverable without a more serious engagement with decentralised energy and a feed-in tariff system.
	The renewables obligation needs to be judged on its record. The Minister sent a letter to parliamentary colleagues spelling out how, within six years of its introduction, the renewables obligation has been responsible for generating capacity of 2 GWe. That is the same amount as Germany delivers every year from its onshore wind installations alone. Our record is not one of dynamic achievement and growth. Indeed, the international assessment and that of the Audit Commission suggests that the renewables obligation has historically been an expensive mechanism for delivering little apart from big subsidies to existing energy companies. To break out of that trap, we need to engage with mechanisms that have a track record of working.
	My hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) pointed out that the Germans have not taken action simply to be ecologically pure, but have also been driven by clear economic self-interest. One of the architects of the German scheme, a politician called Herman Scheer, has twice been to the House of Commons to try to discuss the precise economics with parliamentarians. One can summarise it simply: since the introduction of the feed-in tariff legislation nearly four years ago, Germany has created 250,000 new jobs in the renewable energy sector. That industry has a turnover of almost 25 billion. Germany is considering setting its own targets, which double the 2020 commitments of 20 per cent. of energy coming from renewable sources because it is already well ahead of the game.
	Far from the feed-in tariff system costing the German Exchequer money, reports to the federal Government last December pointed out the huge gains through the sector's driving reductions of energy charges into the system.
	Moreover, talking to German citizens makes one realise that a momentum has been unleashed that we would do well to understand and encourage here. I have visited several German cities to examine the operation of feed-in tariff systems. When I asked the mayors what their biggest problem was, they replied, Keeping up with citizens' demand. Such is the momentum that, in the previous German elections, not one political party would countenance revoking feed-in tariff legislation because that would have been an act of political suicide. The current joke is that Germans will put a solar panel on anything that does not move. If a dog is asleep in a garden for half an hour, it will wake up with a solar panel on its back.
	In Munich alone, there are 1,200 citizens' solar clubs. The momentum gains pace, driving down the unit cost of solar installations and driving up the proportion of energy that renewable sources provide.

Jeremy Corbyn: When the system was introduced in Germany, was there much opposition from the energy companies, which faced competition, and is the same happening in this country?

Alan Simpson: I discussed the matter in last year's Budget debate with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) when he was a Treasury Minister, and it was suggested that the scheme was contentious and unpopular in Germany. I asked the German Government whether that was the case and they said that it was not unpopular with the public or the political parties but that there had been some trouble with the energy companies. In the previous year, the federal Government or municipal government had to take energy companies to court on approximately 150 occasions for failure to comply with the law. On each occasion, the public won and the energy companies lost. Energy company interests were the most contentious part of the programme. That is a lesson for us in the UK. We have found ourselves too deeply enmeshed in the large-scale corporate interests of a feeding system for the big energy companies, which has not necessarily fed the momentum for change to renewable energy systems throughout the UK.
	Fortunately, none of the challenges in Germany about state aid and market distortion was upheld by the courts. The European Court ruled that the feed-in tariff system constituted a perfectly legitimate way to create a dynamic market with a different competitor base. I believe that we must make that intellectual shift.
	However, the debate goes beyond traditional terms. The focus has mainly been on electricity generation. Friends of the Earth, the Renewable Energy Association and other non-governmental organisations put a wonderful advert in the national newspapers last week. It tried to capture the contrasts between the UK and Germany through a different perception of our traditional Anglo-German rivalry. It depicted a mythical Euro solar league, with a shoot-out. There was a goal with lots of footballs in the back, an England goalkeeper in a state of despair and a scoreboard that read, Germany 200, England 1. That is the ratio200:1of installed solar generating capacity between the two countries.  [ Interruption. ] Yes, there was mention of 1966.
	If we widen the focus, the comparisons are even starker. We do just as badly in other aspects of the renewable energy sectors. By the end of 2007, the UK had installed approximately 80,000 solar thermal energy units; in contrast, Germany had more than 1 million. By the end of 2007, the UK had installed approximately 1,000 heat pumps, while Germany installed 44,000 heat pumps in 2006 alone. The contrast in solar photovoltaic energy is between around 2,500 solar roofs in this country and 300,000 in Germany. The UK has 150 wood pellet boilers and Germany has 70,000, while the UK has 17 biogas plants and Germany has 3,800. All that has happened relatively recently, in the past three to four years.
	I want to widen the focus of the debate from just electricity to what we do about renewable heat and renewable biogas. We had a public meeting on that last night. Some interest was generated when it was announced that BERR had a team on heat.  [ Laughter. ] Eyes watered and people made discreet inquiries about what exactly that meant. That team is looking into the issue.
	Let me address the practicalities of what is already done through feed-in tariff regulations in Germany in those 3,800 biogas plants. Essentially, in our system in the UK, the only way someone trying to reclaim methane from wastewhether it be food, farm or animal waste, or sewagecan receive any assistance or recognition is if the waste is converted into energy at the plant. That means that the producers of the energy are left with heat at a remote location and huge infrastructure costs in transmitting heat back into the towns or cities where the waste came from.
	The Germans said, Why waste all that effort in creating the ducting for heat? Why don't we just put it back into the system as gas and allow people to take the credit at the point at which they convert the gas back into energy? The Germans allow that process to take place at combined heat and power plants that are located in the communities that provide the waste in the first place.
	The scope for that process is vast. To put it in context, half the food currently produced in the UK ends up as food waste. A study conducted in Germany at the end of last year calculated that if, at the European level, we used food, farm and animal waste, and perhaps even sewage, for the production of biomethane that we then fed back into our gas systems, by 2020 the entire EU could be economically non-dependent on Russian gas. That is the scale of what is possible. However, we have to make the shift, by changing the rules in order to provide the incentives that will at least allow that to happen.
	At a time when Centrica is already telling us that it will not be able to control future gas prices, because we now have to buy gas on an international market, which drives prices up, German companies can offer their customers gas prices that will not rise other than by the retail prices index, because that gas is being generated from their waste.
	It has also been pointed out that two forms of waste come out of the biogas production process. One is a solid fuel waste, which is a farm-grade fertiliser, which the companies are supplying back to the farms. Again, we should bear in mind that fertiliser prices doubled for UK farmers last year alone. The ability to supply fertiliser back to our farmers has an economic virtue in itself. The second form of waste is a liquid waste, which turns out to be a biofuel. The Germans are using that biofuel to drive the vehicles to collect the waste from people's houses in the first place.
	That is the sort of virtuous circle that is unleashed as a result of making that shift. The sense of empowerment in the process is driven by that community involvement. Hermann Scheer made an additional point, to which the Minister and the Treasury ought to show some sensitivity. More than 90 per cent. of investment in the renewables process in Germany comes from individuals, communities, public authorities and the business sector. Why? Because they can all be stakeholders in the process and because they receive payments from it.
	We have locked ourselves into a system in which those who are willing to go down that path refuse to do so without Government subsidy. However, the Germans and almost 50 other countries are showing that it is possible to make the change in a completely different wayone that makes little or no impact on the Exchequer and delivers huge savings and growth in the economy as a whole.

Brian Iddon: As my hon. Friend knows, I raised this issue in Committee. The Government's response was twofold: first, that there is a pressure problem in feeding biogas into the British mains system; secondly, that biogas has impurities that have to be removed. Has he studied those two issues in the German context, and what can he tell our hon. Friend the Minister about them?

Alan Simpson: I have indeed looked into the problem. The German biogas plants have said that they need over 91 per cent. purity to meet the purity standards for biomethane. However, they are delivering methane into the system at 95 per cent. purity, so purity is just not an issue. Accessing the system is a relatively minor technical problem. The greater problem is a political problem and concerns whether we should require the system to be open to inputs in the way that the German system is. The key is an acceptance of the need for a progressive shift to decentralised energy systems.
	The economic arguments against feed-in tariffs do not stack up. I have repeatedly asked the Minister and the Departments to come up with the figures to justify that. I am happy to have them tested against other, international experience of doing what we are told is not possible in Britain. So far I have not had that evidence, but if we are making a claim, we ought to stand it up to be tested.

Charles Clarke: Is my hon. Friend aware that utility companies such as Anglian Water in my constituency, which has a sewerage plant outside the constituency, are taking steps of the kind that he describes, which are making a difference? However, Anglian Water feels that the renewables obligation certificates system, current arrangements and incentives work against its developing in that way, and that it would need some kind of incentive, of the type described in the new clause, to take that work forward. Such companies, which operate at a bigger level than microgeneration, need some form of incentive to encourage that kind of work, which they want to do.

Alan Simpson: I understand that. The problem is that such companies would lose their entitlements to ROCs if they were to put the gas back into the system and take it out where it is needed, yet that is the most coherent way of doing this. There has to be a change of rules.
	It is important that the House understands that the potential gains apply far more widely than just to the big energy generators. We brought some of the German companies across to talk to communities in the UK. Some of them are able to say, in relation to some areas, Not only will we build the biodigester plant for free, in exchange for a 10 or 15-year contract to reprocess the waste, but we will enter into partnership agreements with the citizens who are our customers. If they supply the waste, we will pay them for it and convert it back into energy. That is what the feed-in tariff allows them to do. It allows citizens to become the drivers of the agenda for change. What is more, it delivers change on a scale to which the UK does not even aspire. In Germany, last year, that measure alone delivered 97 million tonnes of carbon savings. That is 10 times the UK's aspirational target, which we are nowhere near delivering. Perhaps we do not have big enough dreams.

Alan Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend accept that different forms of incentive are needed to ensure that renewable gas is either put into the systemwhich I think is the right way forwardor used in a way other than indirectly to get ROCs by generating electricity? Such incentives either already exist under the current RO system or could easily be organised using a feed-in tariff that would apply primarily to microgeneration. Does he think that either a renewable gas obligation or some form of obligation concerning the efficient use of heat would be appropriate?

Alan Simpson: That is a legitimate point to address. One of the great virtues of the new clause is that it gives the Minister and the Government a year in which to address the specifics. There is nothing to bind the Minister to a particular scheme or set of thresholds. Indeed, it invites him to explore as widely as possible what are the most appropriate ways of dealing with renewable electricity, heat and gas. It is an invitation to come up with the most appropriate schemes. I cannot see why there is a reluctance to engage with that, given that the only commitment that is required is to say that we will come back within a year with something that will deliver change, rather than continually consult on the process.

Jeremy Corbyn: In his suggestion, will my hon. Friend make it clear that his definition of biofuels involves the use of food waste, farm waste and other forms of waste to generate gas with which to generate energy, rather than crop-related biofuels, which are very damaging to food supplies in general?

Alan Simpson: Absolutely. It is important to recognise that we should not go down such a damaging path. The displacement of food production from agricultural land for fuel-based production would be disastrous. We can address the issue by managing our waste. For those who have missed that dimension of the issue, it is worth pointing out that when the 2010 EU directive on landfill comes into effect, the UK could end up with a daily bill of 300,000 under our current waste framework, because we have not come up with solutions to deal with our present waste levels. The proposal offers all sorts of ways out of the problem.

Hugo Swire: On that very point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is some confusion among the agricultural community? At one point they were encouraged to grow alternative crops in order to feed the fuel need, but they are now being told that that is the wrong thing to do. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is talking about something marginally different, but this is a very significant point, because the agricultural community is now in limbo, not knowing whether to grow those crops or not.

Alan Simpson: That is a perfectly valid point, but again I would draw colleagues' attention back to the comparison with Germany, where the farmers are part of this process. Some farmers grow crops and have solar panels; some farmers rear livestock and have solar panels; some have set-aside and solar panels. Huge amounts of renewable energy from the sun are thus coming from the farms and farmers of Germany. If we are examining the dynamics of a rural agenda to address both food and energy security, all the lessons in how to do so are there within the feed-in tariff structure that is already in place in Germany.
	Let me finish with this point. The great message that I want the Minister to hear is that all parties throughout the House have stood solidly alongside each other on this issue, inviting the Government and the Minister to take hold of the reins and give a lead in the knowledge that there will be no political division. There should be no political division, particularly around an issue that the Government will in any case be forced to accept within a year. My concern is that I want to be part of a Labour Government who do not have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the present, let alone the future. That is why I ask the Minister yet again to take over the ownership of the new clause and incorporate it into the Bill, to continue the process of taking forward an issue that unites the whole House, and probably the whole country, in a real dynamic that will give us a sustainable energy future.

Charles Hendry: I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) both for tabling the new clause and for the immensely authoritative way in which he introduced it. He spoke about the importance of having Lily Allen and other celebrity endorsement. For many people, however, he is the star of this debate[Hon. Members: Hear, hear.] He has been the driving force, putting the issue on the agenda so that it is no longer peripheral but absolutely mainstream to the whole energy debate.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, we need to see the issue against the background of the immense challenge we face. If we are to come close to the European target of getting 20 per cent. of our energy from renewables by 2020, it translates into securing about 40 per cent. of our electricity generation from renewables. That is an immense challenge, but given our overall needs for renewable energy, not just electricity, it is a huge mountain that we have to climb. If we are to succeed, we need every bit of help we can get. It means having onshore and offshore wind; it means exploring the potential of the Severn barrage.
	On Monday, I was looking at the barrage in La Rance in France to see what lessons we can learn from it. We need to look into biomass, solar, thermal and ground sources, air source and heat pumps, and we need to look fundamentally at microgeneration. Our vision should be to make as many households as possible not consumers but generators of electricity. That is the nub of the whole debate.
	Ten years ago, the UK and Germany started from the same low base in respect of generating electricity from renewables. Today, whereas we get 2 per cent. of our energy from renewables, Germany gets 8.5 per cent. That was a 1 per cent. increase in just one year in the amount of energy Germany gets from renewablesthe same amount that we got over a 10-year period. The key to Germany's success was the adoption of feed-in tariffs, which helped to drive the programme forward. There should be no doubt that the issue is of interest to more people than just politicians. There is widespread political interest in it, but all the experts in the sector looking at the issue from outside are also pushing in this direction. Today, Terry Barker, director of the Cambridge centre for climate change, which is engaged in mitigation research, and other experts published a letter in the  Financial Times. It says:
	The policies of the UK government to support the development of renewable energy have seen it become one of the worst-performing countries in Europe and stand no chance of getting the UK to meeting its share of the EU target.
	We urge the government to adopt a feed-in tariff policy, which has proved so successful in other countries.
	The Energy Saving Trust, set up by the Government, has said:
	We would welcome enabling measures in the Bill to introduce a feed in tariff and signal the Government's positive approach to encouraging domestic microgeneration.
	Solarcentury, which has campaigned effectively on the issue, has said:
	Throughout Europe, renewable energy feed-in tariffs are a proven and cost effective measure for promoting the rapid uptake of wind, solar, biomass and other technologies. Feed-in tariffs are the principal support mechanism for renewable energy in 22 European countries.
	The National Farmers Union has also given us advice and support.
	The key point is that the new clause does not adopt a prescriptive approach. It is an enabling measure which allows the fundamental decisions to be made elsewhere, and by the Minister in due course. A submission that we received from the Renewable Energy Association states:
	At this stage Clause 4 only commits the Secretary of State to the establishment of a reward scheme for metered renewable energy and to do so within one year. The Clause leaves open until after consultation the detail of how a metered UK tariff would work, which scale and types of renewable technology would qualify and the level of any Tariff.
	It is intended that the Tariff works alongside the Renewable Obligation,
	so we need not be specific at this stage.

John Redwood: Will my hon. Friend confirm that given that flexibility, it would be possible to devise incentives for both microgeneration and bigger renewable schemes? I think we wish to encourage both, but they may require slightly different balances or packages.

Charles Hendry: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no specific provision in the new clause requiring that distinction to be made. Some would argue that a feed-in tariff would be appropriate for larger-scale generation. I think that the renewables obligation works well to encourage both kinds of generation and that we could run the two systems side by side, but nothing in the new clause requires such a decision to be made. The aim must be to achieve the optimal combination from different sources of power. In Germany, private individuals and investors are responsible for 90 per cent. of the investment in renewables, and just 10 per cent. of the investment comes from the major energy companies. In this country, the situation is not reversed; it is even worse than that.

Hugo Swire: Someone who erected four 10 m high wind turbines at a capital cost of 35,000 could put 16,000 kW back into the grid and receive an annual payback of 500 a year. There is no incentive inherent in that. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we genuinely want everyone to attempt to produce energy from renewable sources, we must move towards the German, or continental, model and provide incentives? Otherwise people will simply give up.

Charles Hendry: The current system provides no incentive, although there is tremendous enthusiasm. At a meeting that I attended in my constituency recently, about 50 people were asked how many of them generated their own heat and electricity. About three hands went up. When they were asked how many would be interested in doing so, every hand went up. There is an enormous appetite for renewable generation. What is holding people back is the lack of the predictable income stream that could be achieved through feed-in tariffs.
	I am conscious of the time and I know that others wish to speak, so I shall not prolong the debate. However, I want the hon. Member for Nottingham, South to know that we strongly support his new clause and will vote for it if he pushes it to a Division, because we consider it a crucial part of our attempt to enable this aspect of the energy debate to take off.
	I have tabled a new clause and an amendment. New clause 17 concerns the way in which moneys are looked after. Before the renewables obligation, renewable developments were funded under contract to the Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency. The NFPA continues to operate contracts for existing developments. It auctions the renewables obligation certificates and renewables levy exemption certificates that arise from them, and uses the proceeds to service the contracts.
	Over time a surplus has built up, as the value of the ROCs and LECs has exceeded the cost of managing the contracts. Clearly that surplus has been contributed by customers for the purpose of renewables development. At present, however, that money simply sits on the Chancellor's balance sheet as yet another stealth tax. That was recognised in the Sustainable Energy Act 2003, which provided for 60 million of the surplus to be spent on renewable energy. That funded the grants for round 1 of offshore wind and it has been fully spent. However, some 180 million is currently sitting unused in the surplus account. It could be used to help to develop renewables, especially from market technologies that are further away from development at present, such as marine. The measure I propose would remove the statutory bar that prevents that money from being spent for the purposes for which consumers paid it. It gives the Government an option, but not a duty, to direct that that money is spent rather than treated as a hidden reserve. I hope the Minister will accept it as a step in the right direction.
	Amendment No. 65which we will return to, particularly in another placeaddresses the Government's responsibilities to report. The Bill as it stands proposes a reduction in such Government responsibilities in these areas. If it is enacted, the Government will no longer need to report on the following: what is being done on a range of specified energy sources, particularly renewables and microgeneration; measures being taken to ensure that the necessary expertise is available; and what is being done to achieve their energy efficiency aims, as required under the 2003 Act.
	The Bill also gives scope for changing the reporting periods. In future, reports might cover not a whole year but more than or less than a year. At a time when we are trying to get people more involved in these issues, reducing the reporting requirement on the Government is a step in the wrong direction. We want people to have more information and a better understanding of the issues.
	The Government are currently trying to take matters in the wrong direction. They have resisted our attempts to get more information on gas storage availability, which is a crucial part of our energy security. They have resisted our attempts to make sure we have a better understanding of the skills base, which is particularly needed in order to build new-build nuclear power stations. They have resisted our attempts to make sure that there is a better understanding of what is being done to tackle fuel poverty. They have resisted measures for consumers to be told how much of their money is going on environmental taxes. We will pursue this matter further.
	The key issue in this entire Report stage is feed-in tariffs. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South set that out extremely eloquently in introducing his new clause. We will support him today. It is crucial that we push this forward as a way of making microgeneration not just an aspiration in this country but a realityand one that we can deliver now, so that we do not end up asking in 10 years' time, Why didn't we start that earlier?

Alan Whitehead: I support the idea of having a feed-in tariff, particularly for microgeneration, because it is important to distinguish between different forms of incentive for various kinds of generationlarge and small generation and microgeneration. As this debate progresseswith increasing urgency, I hope questions must also be asked about incentives to make sure that heat is used efficiently and that biogas comes on stream as a substantial element of our power mix.
	In Committee, I moved a new clause on feed-in tariffs, which I particularly wanted to be considered in the context of microgeneration. I did not press it to a Division, in part because of the response that was received in Committee.
	On feed-in tariffs, it is important to be clear about what we want to do in future concerning incentives for microgenerationwhich, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) mentioned, will inevitably be an increasingly important part of our energy mix. Indeed, the Energy Saving Trust suggested that by 2050 some 30 per cent. of our total electricity supply could be provided, in one way or another, by smaller-scale generation or microgeneration: by individuals or communities placing the surplus that they have gained from generation in their homes or communities in the grid, thereby adding to the total amount of power available to the general population. We must consider what kind of incentive is the most useful and important in securing that move forward. What will ensure that large amount of renewable generation at all levels, which will ensure that input across a more distributed electricity grid?
	I have some experience in this area because I am in the process of installing a solar photovoltaic roof on my house. I hope that it will generate 3 kW of electricity. I mentioned in Committee that I had not gone down the grant route, but I am delighted to tell the House that I subsequently applied for a grant and it was instantly accepted, in what was one of the most speedy turnarounds of any piece of Government bureaucracy that I have ever encountered: within a day of my applying for the grant, I received a message on my computer telling me that my application had been accepted. Even so, the grant will subsidise only a small proportion of the total cost of my solar photovoltaic installation.
	I may receive a renewables obligation certificate for my generation, but I want to know what I will get for the surplus that I export from my house now. That is a different form of motivation from the one that large energy generators thinking of investing in renewables will have at the front of their minds. They will want to know what the market will be like by the time they have considered and completed their investment and taken part in the build, and their investment, whatever it might be, is ready to produce for the market. They will also want to know what the market will be like during the life of that particular investment. Thus, they will want to know, among other things, that the market will be stable over a considerable period of time.
	That is one of the key considerations in ensuring that renewables obligations have the right banding in terms of generation. We have discussed that issue during the passage of the Bill and there was no disagreement about it in Committee from any side. We must also consider over what period that obligation exists and, indeed, what headroom will exist in respect of the obligation to ensure that the pull through continues. That matter was also discussed in Committee.
	Large generators will take considerable cognisance of all those issues. There is considerable evidence to suggest that although the emplacement of large-scale renewables facilities has lagged in this country for particular historical reasons, the installation of large-scale offshore wind facilities is proceeding rapidly. That is due, at least in part, to the security that the renewables obligation gives those installations and to the idea that they will therefore be able to export their product over a considerable period of time with the support of the renewables obligation behind them. As far as large-scale generation is concerned, it appears to me that the renewables obligation has begun to have a considerable effect.

Gregory Barker: Why during its first six years did the renewables obligation not encourage large-scale offshore wind power? Nothing has changed in the North sea and nothing has changed in the renewables obligation, so what has happened suddenly, after six years? Why is it such an ineffective mechanism that it took six years to have an impact? That has to be compared with the rapid progress that has been made in Germany.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the progress of the installation of larger-scale renewable generation, but the picture in the UK is complex. It relates partly to incentives and partly to planning permission. The record of several authoritiesI shall not mention which party is in control in those areas because that would be otiose as far as this debate is concernedfor uncertainty when it comes to planning applications has been a factor in the rate of progress of installations.
	Another substantial factor, which I attempted to address in Committee, is the issue of connections to the grid. At the moment, there is a substantial delay to projects that already have investment agreement and, in some cases, planning agreement because they do not have a reliable time for connection to the grid and, therefore, they do not have the ability to make money from the electricity they are exporting.

Hugo Swire: The Government have now been in power for 10 years. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if they had wanted to be at the forefront of this change they would have overcome all these hurdles of connectivity to the grid, planning permission and other issues, as have other European countries such as Germany? We have had a complete absence of leadership on this and we are now beginning to pay the price.

Alan Whitehead: Moving as rapidly as we would want from the position that the UK was in, for particular reasons relating to the source of its energy supplies and the choices that it made historically about those sourcesand therefore the mechanism by which those supplies would be deliveredto where we know we have to get to in the near future with regard to the proportion of energy supply that comes from renewables sources, has been a considerable challenge, and will remain so. It is true that the planning environment has not helped in that process. The Planning Bill will address some of the issues of larger-scale renewable power stations and the Marine Bill, which will be introduced later this year, will provide a single permission regime for offshore generation. So things are changing, and so will the circumstances in which large-scale renewable sources operate.
	It is true that if we take all the investment proposals for both onshore and offshore installations that are in the pipeline, that are consented but awaiting build, or that have everything in place but no date yet for connection, the total amount of electricity generation represented is getting on towards filling the gap in power supply that we need to fill over the next few years. That represents a substantial change in large-scale electricity supply.
	There are therefore several different factors affecting the development of large-scale renewable installations, one of which is the nature of the incentive for investment in the first place. The renewables obligation has generally worked relatively well to bring those investment decisions forward. However, the renewables obligation has barely touched microgeneration. As I have demonstrated, it is not a particular incentive for those who are developing microgeneration. A feed-in tariff would be a much better incentive in that area. The issue that we would then have to address, which is central to my concerns, is that we are not in a position to build incentives on a tabula rasa. We have a series of existing arrangements for developing power and the importation of renewable electricity that are based on the renewables obligation. If we chucked all those arrangements out of the window and went for a universal feed-in tariff tomorrow, that would fundamentally disrupt a number of the investment decisions on larger-scale electricity generation. In fact, large-scale electricity generation would be put in reverse.
	It is important not only to get the feed-in tariff right, but to get the tariff's application right. If we are thinking along the lines of introducing such a tariff, it is important to get its nature right, particularly as regards microgeneration. Should a feed-in tariff be based on the total production undertaken by a microgenerator? Should it be a net tariff based on what the microgenerator exports? Should it be an estimated tariff as a proportion of the total invested? A number of different instruments could be used depending on what is decided.
	The way in which the feed-in tariff works in Germany has led to a few perverse consequences, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South that it has been immensely positive in terms of drawing through microgeneration. However, those who install solar photovoltaic panels export all the electricity generated from those panels into the grid, take a feed-in tariff for that and then buy all their domestic electricity from the grid. The perverse consequence of that is the lack of interchange between what those people produce from the panels on their roof and what they consume in their houses.
	It seems to me that one of the purposes of engaging in the development of microgeneration, particularly microgeneration that is locally sourced and distributed, is that there should be a relationship between the electricity consumed in the house and that produced by the roof panels. If the system does not connect the two, part of the purpose of such microgeneration is missed. That might be an accidental consequence, but it results from the design and operation of the feed-in tariff.
	It is important that we get any feed-in tariff right, because I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South that such a tariff is almost inevitable. It seems that there is no better way to move microgeneration to the next phase of implementation than some form of feed-in tariff. However, we need to consider different incentives, for example on renewable heat and gas, and to be clear about how they apply.
	After I moved my clause in Committee, I was encouraged to hear my hon. Friend the Minister suggest that the idea of a microgeneration feed-in tariff in particular would be one of the subjects of a review this summer. It is fair to say that he has developed that policy since the Committee sat. The question for the House, as it was in Committee, is whether the amendment or a similar one should be left on the table or whether we should go for a vote. In order to ensure that we get things right and undertake the consultation over this summer that was suggested by my hon. Friend, the amendment should remain on the tableit should not be withdrawn and never heard of again. There should be an understanding that we will have to go in this direction, so it is important that we get that direction right, that the review is completed quickly and that the mechanism for getting microgeneration right in the UK is implemented.
	I hope that the review will be the subject of a further energy Bill next year, as has been widely suggested. That Bill should deal with questions such as how we obligate and implement action on renewable heat and make sure that the present escape into the air of heat that has no energy output is covered by an obligation system. Energy companies should be obliged to do something with that heat, or suffer a penalty for not doing so.

Martin Horwood: I should like to join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) on bringing forward new clause 4, and on the elegant and persuasive way in which he proposed it. I am happy and honoured to be one of the new clause's co-signatories.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham, South has gathered an extraordinary coalition to support new clause 4. At the last count, 276 hon. Members had signed the early-day motion, and the hon. Gentleman has managed to unite the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) at one extreme with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway) at the othersomething that must be virtually unique. He has also brought the National Farmers Union together with Greenpeace, and the TUC with the Country Land and Business Association, and he has generated wide support in the renewable energy sector.
	For me personally, though, the icing on the cake is that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South has got the support of Lily Allen. That is extremely welcome: I am sure that he will agree that All Right Still is a work of genius, and that Lily and Friends is a much underrated show. If the Minister were to accept new clause 4, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would put in a good word, so it is possible that we will see the Minister on Lily's sofa before too long. That would be great.
	More seriously, the Government's direction of travel on this matter has been positive, but once again it seems to be leading us towards more consultation, and possibly yet another energy Bill. The Government seem reluctant to accept even the modest and flexible powers set out in new clause 4. Oppositions are quick enough to criticise Ministers who want to take on too much power, but this Minister should seize this opportunity to be praised from all sides of the House for taking on at least some powers that we all want him to have.
	More delay would be a serious concern, as it would mean that we would drift on with this matter into 2009 or 2010, with further primary or secondary legislationperhaps bothneeding to be discussed. The question is why would we need to delay further, when so much work has been done already?
	The Government commissioned a world-leading piece of work to analyse policies for climate change mitigation in detail. It is called the Stern report, and it addresses the question of feed-in tariffs in some detail. Stern says:
	Comparisons between deployment support through tradable quotas
	in other words, the sort that we have already
	and feed-in tariff price support suggest that feed-in mechanisms achieve larger deployment at lower costs. Central to this is the assurance of long-term price guarantees...the levels of deployment are much greater in the German scheme and the prices are lower than comparable tradable support mechanisms.
	Stern goes on to say:
	Contrary to criticisms of the feed-in tariff, analysis suggests that competition is greater than in the UK Renewable Obligations Certificate scheme. These benefits are logical as...uncertainty...discourages investment and increases the cost of capital as the risks associated with the uncertain rewards require greater rewards.
	In other words, the price guarantee delivered by feed-in tariffs offers a better environment for investment. The investment that has been delivered in Germany is striking, as it has engaged a far wider array of investors than the traditional energy companies. The Renewable Energy Association has pointed out that just 10 per cent. of investment in the German feed-in tariff scheme has come from the major energy companies, while 90 per cent. has come from private individuals, private investors and municipal energy companies.
	That is a remarkable opportunity and a key part of the success of the German scheme. That is why the German Federal Environment Ministry expects the scheme to save 52 millions tonnes of CO2 in 2010 alone, and why Germany has 10 times more wind power than us, according to Greenpeace, and 300 times more solar power. That is why Germany benefits from 170,000 people working in the renewable energy sector, which is worth 8.7 billion to its economy.
	If Stern is not enough, there is further Government-commissioned advice. Their specialist low-carbon technology agency, the Carbon Trust, has also addressed feed-in tariffs. Its July 2006 report said:
	The most efficient solution in terms of cost per unit of energy and achieving maximum offshore wind capacity by 2015 involves moving away from the current RO towards a fixed mechanism... Feed-in tariffs have been proven to be successful elsewhere (Spain and Germany) in generating significant deployment of low-cost renewable energy. The analysis suggests that a Renewable Development Premium
	a feed-in tariff
	in the UK will result in 8.8GW of additional wind capacity by 2015, when combined with additional funding... This is c.3.5GW more wind capacity than the base case representing the current RO policy.
	If all the work, the views of the agencies and the consultations are not enough, will the Minister listen to the Secretary of State? On Second Reading, he said:
	Germany has benefited from a consistently supportive policy for renewables since the early 1990s, and it is paying dividends. That clarity and consistency of approach has been a big part of Germany's success, which we celebrate with our German colleagues...UK renewables investors have highlighted certainty and consistency as two of the factors that will be crucial to continued and rapid growth and development of renewables in the UK.[ Official Report, 22 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 1368.]

Kelvin Hopkins: On that basis, can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Government do not now simply imitate precisely what the Germans are doing?

Martin Horwood: There are differences between the German and British energy markets; for example, we have a more deregulated and liberalised market. However, if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should move towards the German model much more quickly, I entirely agree.
	I give due credit to the Minister because, in Committee, he seemed to be moving in the direction of feed-in tariffs. However, in the words of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, we need quickly to unleash much greater momentum. I am afraid that the Minister must move considerably faster, and new clause 4 is the method by which he can do that.

Paddy Tipping: The hon. Gentleman is right that the Minister was encouraging in Committee about feed-in tariffs. However, does he agree that the renewable obligation and feed-in tariffs can work in tandem? Given that, surely careful thought is needed about how they can be introduced so that those things work together effectively.

Martin Horwood: I agree absolutely. During the Committee's evidence sessions, we specifically asked several expert witnesses whether the renewables obligation could continue alongside the introduction of feed-in tariffs, and the consistent view was that it could. Care must be taken with the introduction of such tariffs, but that is why the hon. Member for Nottingham, South has wisely included a provision in the new clause for a 12-month lead-in time. If that is not enough, we are doing something fundamentally wrong. If the Minister accepts new clause 4, he can really start to put his foot on the accelerator, if that is not an inappropriate phrase for a low-carbon debate.
	Let me touch on several other measures in the group. New clause 11 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and my neighbour, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who has been a controversial figure today, although he can make many welcome contributions to the green debate. New clause 11 highlights a problem with not only hydro-microgeneration, but the 50 kW definition for microgeneration, which is causing arguments in the wind energy sector. We need a flexible and adaptable approach to renewable energy that recognises real opportunities such as those offered by micro-hydro. It would be wonderful to see a traditional and highly environmentally-friendly form of energy coming back into wider use in a new and modern form, so I welcome new clause 11.
	I also welcome the Conservatives' new clause 17, which, as I understand it, would raise the cap on the amount that the Government can spend on promoting renewable energy. That reflects the fact that surplus funds are building up at the Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency. Amendment No. 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), touches on an important issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). There is genuine concern that innovative businesses in renewable energy may be put in an impossible financial situation. I am sympathetic to the issues raised by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Angus.
	New clauses 20 and 21 and amendment No. 65 are welcome improvements to the Bill, and we would happily support them. Indeed, amendment No. 65 appears to be modelled on a Liberal Democrat amendment tabled in Committee. The amendment is designed, as the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) rightly pointed out, to keep Government reporting to fixed timetables, and to ensure that reporting is clearly focused on the Government's progress in supporting renewable energy. That is needed more than ever. Renewable energy offers us the opportunity to have many new, clean sources of power, to have a more efficient, decentralised and resilient energy system, and to make an important contribution to the battle against climate change.
	The Government need to grasp the urgency of the situation. I would love to quote a lyric from the Lily Allen song Alfie that sums up exactly what is needed, but it would certainly be unparliamentary language. The gist of it is that there is an urgent need to dismiss distractions and get on with what really needs to be done. I agree with the hon. Member for Wealden that new clause 4 is the single most important opportunity to ensure that that happens that we are being offered today.

Dai Havard: I will not detain the House long. I have been struck by the fact that, as I am opposed to nuclear power being developed, I face the discipline of having to consider all the other forms of energy that might make up an efficient energy mix in future. I have considered what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) said about feed-in tariffs; he explained better than I could that they are efficient, help to ensure security of supply, and help to produce a plurality in the energy market that would otherwise not be there.
	I am also struck by the idea that if we are not careful we will construct a process that is very much in the hands of big power, whether that is nuclear power or any of the array of providers that will be in place. The process that my hon. Friend outlined involves a democratisation of the argument; I wish that he had said a bit more about that. New clause 4 would bring local people into the process in a different way, and would produce a plurality in the market that could generate efficiency. To people who are interested in competition, I add that it would create greater, better and efficient competition.
	Some of my hon. Friends are concerned about how the measures fit with the other obligations. As I understand it, new clause 4 says, Go and consider the issue for 12 months, and come up with mechanisms that produce not conflict but co-operation and collaboration that results in the best of both worlds. I would have thought that the term, a third way, might have been tempting for some Labour Members. The new clause also does other things: it imposes a discipline on us to ensure that what I have outlined happens. I say to my hon. Friends that the review in the summer and the other measures mentioned are necessaryin fact, they should happen in any event; they are just matters of efficiencybut if the new clause is added to the Bill, it will provide the discipline that will ensure that things happen in a structured way. It will give the House the capacity to understand, monitor and control the process, so that it comes back to us.
	Let me reinforce the point that the new clause is one way of ensuring that, in future, individuals can understand where they are, in terms of the consumption, supply and generation of electricity, because it allows communities to get involved, as well as individuals. It allows collective capacity; it is not just about an individual putting a windmill on their roof. The measure is about communities, planning, consent, and co-operation. To me, the democracy argument is as important as the efficiency argument.

Michael Weir: I support new clause 4, which was so ably introduced by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). He said more about it than I could ever say, so I shall move on to my amendment No. 1, which is much more technical and deals with the interaction between research and development grants and renewables obligation certificates for certain projects.
	There is a concern that efforts to avoid giving projects double help may put in doubt the future of some projects. That was suggested to me by those who were involved in the DOWNVInD programme, which I am told is one of the largest renewable energy research and technology development programmes in Europe. The project is funded by Talisman Energy and Scottish and Southern Energy, with significant contributions in kind from many of its 18 other participants from seven EU countries.
	I understand that in addition to private capital, the project received research funding from the European Commission's sixth framework research and technology development programme, the then Department of Trade and Industry's new and renewable energy programme, and the Scottish Government's science and technology development programme. The public sector support for the project was predicated on the observation that offshore wind was an emerging technology confined to shallow near-shore waters.
	The DOWNVInD programme was essential to move the offshore wind technology to deeper waters more distant from shore, and was obviously looking to the future of offshore wind. That was noted in the then DTI's grant offer letter, which stated that
	the project is high risk, and does present an opportunity to better understand the economic and technical prospects for offshore deepwater windfarms.
	The problem is that, because of the way the subsections that I am seeking to delete from the Bill are written, as the project has received public sector grants, it might not be able to take up the new banded ROCs. Special arrangements will apply to projects in receipt of capital grants, but that would mean that if projects qualified for up-banding, they would have to pay back some of the research grant, as proposed new section 32E(5)(a) sets out:
	if the grant or any part of it has been paid, to repay to the Secretary of State the whole or a specified part of the grant or part before the repayment date.
	The result of that would be that projects that received ROCs would have to repay grants.
	I am told that the proposal was originally aimed at post-demonstration projects in receipt of capital grant, such as the round 1 offshore wind projects. However, the wording means that projects such as DOWNVInD would become subject to the regulations and would no longer be able to get ROCs. They would never be able to move beyond the demonstration stage because they would be unable to produce energy and get the benefit of ROCs.

Hugo Swire: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although the UK is a world leader in marine energy technology, the incentives for the offshore ROCs, as opposed to the other mature technologies, are so few that they do little to incentivise the offshore technology?

Michael Weir: Indeed. Onshore wind is now a mature technology, and that is recognised in the proposals for the new ROC bandings, where it will remain at one ROC. We need to incentivise emerging technologies such as deep-water offshore windbut not only wind technologies. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) mentioned the concerns of his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) about tidal projects in the Pentland firth, which have huge potential but need the capital funds for research and development in the first stage. If they are to produce electricity, they need access to the ROC procedure. However, under the provisions as written, that would not happen. I ask the Minister to reconsider that point and not to put at risk projects such as DOWNVInD and the tidal and wave development project in the Pentland firth. Such projects require the grants to get off the ground in the first instance, but they also need the support of ROCs, as do those involving other renewable technologies.
	I turn briefly to new clause 20, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner). It refers to transmission charges. It would not do for an Energy Bill to pass without my talking about such charges; I seem to have been doing that for years in this place. I support what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do. I shall be interested in what he says about the new clause; if I read it correctly, it seeks to end the discrimination in transmission charges. That has been a matter of huge concern to many of us in Scotland for many years.
	Although Scotland has huge potential for renewable development, there is a problem with the transmission charges and how Ofgem has developed them. It means that there is discrimination against projects in remoter rural areas; it is considerably more expensive to transmit energy from such projects than it is from developments in, say, the south-east of England. If the intention behind the new clause is to do away with that discriminationand I think that it isI wholeheartedly support it. I hope that the Minister will take it on board and finally deal with the matter, so that I no longer have to stand here and talk about transmission charges and I can move on to something else.

Desmond Turner: I must confess to a grave feeling of personal disappointment with the Bill, because it is being published at a time when Parliament has thoroughly recognised the vital importance of combating climate change and, I hope, of promoting renewable energy, which is one of our most potent weapons for fighting climate change. I am disappointed because this legislative vehicle has nothing to promote renewable energy, with the exception of the banded renewables obligation certificates, which are welcome. However, that is only one measure, and we need a comprehensive policy framework. New clauses 4, 20 and 21 form part of a proposed comprehensive framework. Clause 19 would have been another part of it had it been selected by Mr. Speaker.
	I should like to express my support for new clause 4. The banding of ROCs goes some way towards doing what feed-in tariffs do in Germany. However, the ROCs are still expensive to administer and still provide uncertain value; the redemption value of a ROC is not fixed, so there is still investment uncertainty. It is still worth considering feed-in tariffs not only for microgeneration, for which they are clearly the only workable approach, but as a parallel mechanism for larger, commercial-scale generation. Existing generators could elect to stay with ROCs and new generators could have the option of going either with ROCs or a new feed-in tariff system. There is no need for conflict. Another great advantage to feed-in tariffs is that they do not cost the Treasury a bean, whereas operating the ROC system is very expensive to the public purse.

Gregory Campbell: In light of the cross-party support for new clause 4 that has been heard in the House, would not the Minister bring great credit to himself and display great courage by adopting it as a policy?

Desmond Turner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. I was going to put that point to my hon. Friend in almost the same words when I finish.
	It does not matter whether we have feed-in tariffs or ROCs, as this is not the only policy instrument that is necessary if we are to get the large-scale and rapid deployment of renewable energy that we need. That is not the sole secret of Germany's successit is just one measure contained in the German Renewable Energy Sources Act, which also contains many other vital provisions. New clause 20 would carry out the proposed EU renewable energy directive, which is itself based on the German Act. The two most important provisions concern grid access. In this country, we have the bizarre situation whereby 15 GW of totally approved wind generation cannot get access to the grid, and will not get access for many years. That is a totally unacceptable situation that we must do something about if we are getting serious. New clause 20 proposes that there should be guaranteed access to the grid for renewable generators. If that means that the grid needs to be strengthened or reinforced or to have new lines laid, then so be itthe grid operators would have to do that. They would have to raise the capital in the normal commercial way, and Ofgem would have to approve it. That is what happens in Germany, and it works. The grid operators may grumble, but they do it.
	It is no good if the generator is installed and connected if its output is not maximally used. If we want to maximise renewable energy, the output of a renewable generator should have a priority call on the grid whenever it is generating. That is the provision in the renewable energy directive and the provision that holds good in Germany under the Renewable Energy Sources Act, and that is what new clause 20 would provide. Whichever financial incentive mechanism we use, whether multi-banded ROCs or feed-in tariffs, if we do not have the facility to take the electricity and use it, it is of no value. We need a comprehensive framework.
	New clause 21 is drafted with the Scottish situation in mind, as I am sure the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir)I am delighted to have his supportwill remember from remarks made in the Committee considering the previous Energy Bill. When the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements were introduced in the Energy Act 2004, we got zonal transmission charges. The effect of zonal transmission charges is that a generator is penalised for its distance from a notional centre of consumption in the system. The further away the generator is, the more it pays in transmission charges. We are talking about incentives, and the incentivisation under that system would be to concentrate generation at some notional point about 50 miles north of Birmingham, where renewable resources are not at their strongest. I do not think that it is to be recommended.
	The most potent bits of our magnificent renewable resources, such as offshore wind, wave and tidal stream, happen to be geographically located a long way from a central point north of Birmingham. They are also technologies that at the moment are commercially difficult because they are expensive, because of their situation and, in the case of wave and tidal stream, because they are emerging new technologiesthe first commercial tidal stream machinery has only just been installed. Naturally, such technologies cannot match the cost of other generating technologies at this time. Investment decisions, therefore, will have to be finely balanced. To add 2p or 3p per kW extra in transmission charges could be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and such investment does not happen.
	There is a real disincentive built in to the BETTA system. There is a mechanism for dealing with the matter in section 185 of the Energy Act, and new clause 21 would amend that. Section 185 provides for a power to cap transmission charges and the Secretary of State can do that by nominating oneonly one, as the Act is currently draftedspecific zone for the production of renewable energy. However, it may be necessary to have more than one. Subsection (2) of the new clause would replace a with any so that the Secretary of State has freedom of choice. He can select any of several, or more, suitable areas to which to apply the capping powers. The other deficiency in section 185 is that it contains sunset provisions. The import of three of its subsections is that the capping protection cannot last for more than 10 years. That will not give investors any confidence in commercial stability either. I found that provision difficult to understand at the time, and equally difficult now.

Michael Weir: Is it not also the case that 10 years is one period? It depends on when the generator starts generating in that 10-year period; for individual generators, it could be much less than 10 years.

Desmond Turner: Exactly. That is why I said a maximum of 10 years' protection. I see no justification for the sunset provisions at all, in all logic, so I wish to remove them. We would then have a reasonable protective measure that would fulfil what the Government probably intended when they drafted section 185 of the 2004 Act.
	I submit to my hon. Friend the Minister that there is no reason for delay in legislating to get rapid deployment of renewable energy. We need a comprehensive set of measures; new clauses 4 and 20 are clearly central to that process. Without new clause 20, new clause 4 will not be fully effective. New clause 21 is a further addition, and new clause 19 was not selected but refers to Ofgem's responsibilities. Ofgem plays a pivotal role and if its primary responsibility is sustainability, it will make a huge difference. I will not expand on that because new clause 19 was not selected, but its purpose needs to be kept firmly in mind.
	I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to recognise that the Government's best course is to accept new clauses 4, 20, 21 and others. There is no question of party advantage, but potential for great advantage for the country. I therefore strongly urge my hon. Friend to accept the new clause.

David Heath: I want to speak about new clause 11, which deals with hydro-microgeneration. Before doing so, let me express my enthusiastic support for the new clause and the remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). If the new clause were accepted, it would do some of what I am trying to achieve in stimulating the growth of hydro-microgeneration.
	It is frustrating that we appear to spend so much time in this country hugging ourselves, congratulating ourselves and telling ourselves how wonderfully wise, green and environmentally friendly we are and that we are world beaters, when much of the outside world passes us by and gets ahead of us through mechanisms that are available to us if only we would use them. I say to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) that I see no purpose in agreeing with an amendment and then letting it lie on the table. It should not lie on the table; it should be activated. The Minister would be advised to accept the new clause today.
	I do not pretend that hydro-microgeneration is the answer to all our renewable energy problemsof course it is not. It is a small part of the portfolio of renewables that we need. Patently, not everybody has a house on a river with a mill. Hydro-microgeneration will not therefore be a huge contributor, but it is part of the process. I am a great believer in decentralisation and finding small solutions and putting them together to make a big difference.
	Hydro-microgeneration represents a small but significant part of the renewables market. I had the great pleasure of helping to open a new facility in my constituency last year. Tellisford mill is an old water mill in a beautiful place. Anthony Battersby and his wife Rachel have done a wonderful job in investing in a new water turbine in the mill. They not only provide energy from a renewable source but are socially and environmentally aware in being good neighbours. The mill is not like some renewable energy sources, with which people have a problem. We are considering an old mill, which is being used for the same purpose for which it was used 200 years ago, and that is good. It produces renewable energy for 65 houses, which is good news.
	The Mendip Power Group has a series of mills along the River Frome. When they are fully operational, they will provide 2,100 MWh, which is a significant contribution. The Mendip Power Group is one of three such groups in my immediate area. We also have the South Somerset Hydropower Group and the Stour and Vale Hydro Group, which is based in Dorset. Between Somerset and Dorset, more than 100 water turbines provide renewable energy. However, everyone involved in the process says that the difficulty of getting past the existing bureaucracy is such a disincentive that they often feel as though they are banging their heads against a brick wall. I want to illustrate and address those frustrations in my remarks.

David Drew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heath: I will of course give way to a co-sponsor of my new clause 11.

David Drew: I am pleased to co-sponsor new clause 11. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another issue that we should examine closely is flood prevention? Much as we need to generate electricitythat is the point of new clause 11if we get that right, we will also remove the flood risks that will inevitably follow if we do not manage the water properly.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right. A sensible community would manage a whole river basin in a much more sustainable way than we do now. We are trying to do that in Somerset and some other parts of the country, but that means taking energy from the river, using appropriate storage of water to prevent flooding and using the entire ecosystem in a water basin in the most effective way, so the hon. Gentleman is right.
	What are the current difficulties? The Minister knows what they are, because I have written to him, as have those who operate the mills, who have also had meetings with his Department and tried to explain the issues. The principal issue is the definition of microgeneration for hydro power. We have mixed definitions of the maximum allowable in microgeneration, but the most effective one, including in respect of the renewables obligation certificate, is a maximum of 50 kW. However, a great number of water turbines generate between 50 kW and 100 kW. I accept that 50 kW is a perfectly viable maximum for many renewable sources; one would need quite a large photovoltaic array on top of one's house to reach 50 kW. However, that is not a large figure for a water turbine. Indeed, at its best, the technology used in the new water turbines generally produces more than 50 kW.
	We conducted a survey of the 100 or so mill installations that I have mentioned in Somerset and Dorset. That survey could be taken as proving the Government's point. The majority of those mills89 of themgenerated less than 50 kW and only 13 generated more. However, those 13 generated more electricity than the other 89 put together. If we are interested in getting the maximum yield of renewable electricity, the 50 kW cut-off is absurd.
	Because 50 kW is the cut-off for the double ROC, those who have installed such facilities or who intend to do so have a strange decision: either they run their installation at less than full capacity, in order to keep within the double ROC maximum, or they take a financial loss. What sort of policy nonsense is it to have renewable capacity, but run it at less than full capacity? There is of course an extra financial loss, because the 50 kW maximum is also used for the income tax exemption, so there is a double hit.
	The other financial difficulty that many people face concerns the grid connection, which has already been mentioned. I am told that a 400 m connection can cost 16,500. That is a lot of money on top of the initial capital outlay already required. Oddly enough, mills are usually on rivers and are not normally very close to communities; therefore, there is an inherent cost in providing the infrastructure required to run a renewable installation.
	The second issue that I want to raise is the licensing regime. It seems that the Environment Agency has never talked to the energy Department, in whatever form it has taken, about what is needed. If one tries to get a water abstraction licence for one's water mill, one might be told that one needs an abstraction licence, an impoundment licence or a transfer licenceone might even be told to get all three. All that for water that never leaves the river. It goes into a leat, is used by the turbine and is returned to the river. It is nonsense to call that an abstraction, yet all those licences are obligations, dealt with by the Environment Agency, that have to be paid for. One has to apply for them and go through all the bureaucracy that comes with that.
	There is no consistency in the way that the system is applied. I have two mills in my constituency, one of which I have mentioned. Tellisford has an impoundment licence, while Stowford, which is a little further down the stream, has an abstraction licence. The mills do the same thing, but the Environment Agency is determined that they need different licences, whereas another mill on the same river, Lullington, needs all three licences. Surely, it is not beyond the wit of the Government to devise a single licensing regime for hydro-microgeneration that obviates what I describe, particularly given that water is not being abstracted.
	Not only does one need a licence, but one has to report daily on abstraction. No water is leaving the watercourse, but one still has to report to the Environment Agency every day about how much water has been abstracted from the stream into the leat, and how much has passed back from the leat into the river. It is the same amount on either side. That is also nonsense. Each year, from every mill, 365 flow readings go to the Environment Agency, which I doubt is desperate for more work, but that achieves nothing because the same water is going in and out.
	Another issue that the Environment Agency is very concerned about is reserved flow, but for all the reasons that I have given, there is no consequence from a mill stream taking water into a loop and then feeding it back into the main watercourse. The stream has probably done that for hundreds of years. That is not a new thing; it was there before the water turbine and will be there after it, but the Environment Agency thinks it an important thing to measure. Interestingly, an Environment Agency officer said to Mr. Battersby, who gave me this information:
	We are very good at measuring change, but absolute rubbish at deciding if it matters or not.
	That sums up the regime in which those officers are working.
	The final subject that I want to talk about is fish. I do not want to be unkind to fish. They are very important, and I do not want to do anything that would be detrimental to the safety or health of the various species. The Environment Agency considers water turbines to be a major hazard to fish, even in a stream that has no migrating species. I understand the need to put facilities in a stream along which salmon or trout migrate and need a passage through a weir or need to bypass a turbine, but not if there are no migrating species. If the weir has been there for hundreds of years, the fish, if they have any species memory, will presumably know that it is there by now, and will use the main river course instead, rather than bump into the weir and hurt their snouts. That is not a serious issue. Why, then, does the Environment Agency expand it to become a major obstacle to the production of energy from this source?
	I do not wish to detain the House any longer, but I want the Minister to understand that many people are desperate to invest in renewable energy and they have the means to do so in a way that is socially and environmentally responsible. They can make a real contributionnot the biggest contribution in the world, but a real contribution neverthelessto providing energy into the system. Obstacles and impediments are in their way, which could be avoided if only the Department and the Environment Agency would take these concerns seriously.
	I do not intend to press my new clause to a Division, but rather like that put forward by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South, mine provides a year for the Government to get their house in order and provide the necessary changes to regulation in order to accomplish what we all want. I hope that the Minister will not tell me just what is technically wrong with the new clause. I am sure that he can find something wrong with it, but that is not the point. My intention was to stimulate debate about one small sector of renewable energy that we could encourage to a much greater extent if we avoided the obstacles and made the fiscal arrangements more appropriate than they are now.
	I would love it if the Minister were to stand up and declare that he supports the feed-in tariff proposal, and if he will not, I hope that the House will persuade him to change his mind. In the same breath, I hope that he will also look seriously at the issues in my new clause, and put in the necessary changes in order to stimulate this small but important sector of microgeneration.

Malcolm Wicks: This group of amendments covers a wide range of renewables issues, so I hope the House will forgive me if I am on my feet for some time trying to answer all the points raised. I would like to try to do justice to them and address as many of them as possible. I would like first to deal with the renewables obligation-related amending provisions; secondly, with issues related to transmission; thirdly, with the Government's reporting on energy; and, finally, with the issue of feed-in tariffs.
	The intention behind new clause 11 is, as we have just heard, to encourage the deployment of hydro-microgeneration. It proposes exempting micro-hydro installations from the licensing requirements set out by the Environment Agency. Those requirements were put in place for the purpose of protecting our rivers and wildlife. However, there is always a balance to be struck and I am aware of the micro-hydro sector's concerns around the burdens that the regulations place on it. Those impacts are not always easy to assess, which is why I believe it is right to pursue a route to better co-operation between the industry and the regulator, rather than to disapply regulatory protections.
	My officials are aware of the issue and they are keen to find a way forward, if possible, with the Environment Agency. For example, my Department has funded a project between the industry and the Environment Agency to develop a good practice guide on the environmental impact of micro-hydro schemes.
	The new clause also proposes changes to the treatment of micro-hydro under the renewables obligation. The detail of how it is implemented is already set out in the Renewables Obligation Order 2006, which takes account of relevant differences between technologies, including hydro-generation. I believe it would be inappropriatenot to mention increasingly complexfor microgenerators to have separate regulations, as seems to be suggested, dealing just with hydro-microgeneration for the purposes of the renewables obligation.
	Specifically on the definition of hydro-microgeneration, the bands for all technologies will be set out in the order and there is no need for either separate secondary legislation or a definition in primary legislation to deal with the issue. All the changes to the order, including the thresholds for support levels, will be subject to statutory consultation before introduction. My officials have met representatives of the industry to discuss these issues and have committed to consider them further in the light of a study that the British Hydro Association is carrying out on the scope for micro-hydro, so I believe that the right place for the industry and others to voice their concerns is as part of that consultation and not through this Bill.

David Heath: rose

Malcolm Wicks: I was about to say that I hope I have provided the hon. Gentleman with some reassurance, but I give way to him now.

David Heath: Very little reassurance, but the Minister has said that consultations will continue, which is welcome. May I point out to him that on his own Department's website a micro-hydro plant is defined as being below 100 kW, not below 50 kW? I hope he will bear that in mind.

Malcolm Wicks: The issue at stake is how that relates to the renewables obligation, but I hope I have given the hon. Gentleman the reassurances that he wanted.
	New clause 17 amends the Sustainable Energy Act 2003 to increase the money available for spending on the promotion of renewables that is available from the non-fossil fuel obligation levy fund. That money arises from transitional arrangements introduced when the support system for renewable electricity generation moved from the non-fossil fuel obligation to the renewables obligation. Through the Sustainable Energy Act, we have already made available 60 million of the money arising from the NFFO transitional arrangements for spending on renewables.
	I understand what hon. Members are trying to achieve in seeking to increase Government expenditure on renewables, but I think we should focus on the bigger picture and the Government's existing wide range of support for renewables. Public sector funding for renewables and low-carbon technology innovation is increasing steadily, both in the UK and more generally in the European Union.
	Research councils' expenditure on energy-related basic, strategic and applied research is planned to reach 300 million over the current comprehensive spending review period. The Energy Technologies Institute, a new public-private partnership designed to co-ordinate research on and development funding for low-carbon energy technologies, currently has a budget of 600 million over the next 10 years, with the potential to increase to 1 billion with the addition of new partners. The Technology Strategy Board has a total budget of more than 1 billion over the current CSR period, which will include funding for energy development technologies. The UK element of the environmental transformation fund has 400 million over the next CSR period to invest in low-carbon and energy efficiency demonstration technologies.
	Most important of all, we must not forget the substantial support that is available through the renewables obligation. Along with exemptions from the climate change levy, the RO will provide around 1 billion of support each year by 2010. Moreover, we will be considering a full range of policy options for supporting a step change in the deployment of renewable energy as part of our renewable energy strategy. Any decisions on additional funding will be made in the context of future spending settlements.
	In the light of the assurances that I have given, I hope that the new clause will not be pressed to a Division.
	Before I deal with amendment No. 1, let me explain the purpose of the subsections that the amendment seeks to remove. Because of the importance of getting our reforms of the RO right, it has taken some time for the Governmentconsulting industry and othersto develop the proposals. To ensure that developers continued to contribute new investment in the interim, we made a commitment to allow any projects becoming operational after 11 July 2006, before the banding proposals come into effect, to benefit from the greater levels of support afforded through banding. A tidal power station coming on stream tomorrow would receive two ROCs per MWh when banding comes into effect. There was a significant risk that, without such a commitment, developers would hold back vital investment in renewables while waiting for the increased levels of support to kick in. That would not have been an acceptable outcome.
	However, some of the existing projects that will become eligible for a higher level of support once banding is introduced will also be in receipt of grant funding. The grants will have been notified to the European Commission as state aid, and will have been assessed on the basis that the generators will receive one ROC per MWh. We therefore need a mechanism to ensure that we do not find ourselves in breach of state aid rules through generators' accumulating subsidies from different support mechanisms beyond the allowable thresholds.
	The amendment proposes to remove the power for the order to allow generators in receipt of a grant to choose between receiving the new higher band for ROCs but surrendering the grant, and retaining the grant and continuing to receive one ROC per MWh. Ultimately that will be a commercial decision for generators, but it allows them the option of banding up when they could otherwise be barred from doing so by state aid rules. It is important for that power to remain in the Bill so that when a banded RO is introduced generators can make a commercial decision on the path that they prefer, while ensuring both that state aid rules are not infringed and that consumers and taxpayers are given value for money. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a vote.

Michael Weir: I understand what the Minister is saying, but is there not a danger that the research and development stage will never come about if there is no guarantee of a sustainable future?

Malcolm Wicks: I do not quite understand that point; I will be happy to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber. We have got substantial support for research and development, but our purpose is to try to avoid double subsidy, not just because of state aid principles but because that would not be a proper use of money.

Robert Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: I have a long way to go in my speech before I reach some of the issues of particular interest, but I shall give way once more.

Robert Smith: The Minister just said that this was not about state aid rules alone. If it were just about state aid rules, could there not be flexibility so that if the project truly needed the double ROCs and the initial grant to overcome the start-up costs, the issue could be revisited to see that it still complied with state aid rules?

Malcolm Wicks: This is more a matter of not subsidising something twice when that was never the intention; that would be a perverse consequence.
	New clause 20 seeks to provide priority access to the electricity and gas transmission and distribution systems to electricity and gas produced from renewable energy sources. The text of the first part of this amendment, which relates to electricity, comes from the draft EU renewables directive. Before I start analysing the provisions further, I should make it clear that once the Commission's proposals for priority access are finished and the directive agreed, these proposals could be implemented in the UK in a number of ways, not all of them involving primary legislation. We need to be careful not to implement something now just because we have the legislative opportunity.
	Turning to the substance of the amendment, the first issue is that there is no current definition of priority access. Without a clear meaning of priority access, it would be difficult to avoid uncertainty, which would impact on existing generators and those planning future investments. That could discourage investments and would have serious repercussions on the meeting of our energy needs and targets.
	The next issue is whether priority access is both consistent with our wider energy policy goals and the best route to accelerate the growth in renewable generation. It is important to have conventional generation alongside renewables, but it is essential that the access regime encourage new investment in reserve capacity. Without that, we could have serious difficulties in maintaining a reliable electricity system. In this context, we are considering reforms to grid access arrangements as part of the transmission access review with Ofgem, to ensure that the regulatory framework remains fit for purpose in the medium and long term, and to speed up the connection of renewable generation. It is clear from this work that there are ways in which we could significantly improve the connection opportunities for renewable generation. We will set out that analysis when the final report of the review is published in May. However, it is important also to remember that from the perspective of a renewable developer, connection in a reasonable time consistent with the development programme for their project timetable is likely to be more important than whether they have been treated more favourably than other technologies.
	On the second part of the new clause, which is not part of the EU directive I mentioned earlier, let me reiterate what I said in Committee: the Government are keen to support and investigate the cost-effective potential of renewable gas to contribute to the UK share of the EU target to achieve 20 per cent. of the EU's energy from renewables by 2020. Renewable gas, or biogas, is produced by feeding organic material such as food waste, sewage sludge, animal slurries or energy crops into an anaerobic digestion plant, or from the decomposition of organic matter in landfill sites. It is important to remember that through this Bill anaerobic digestionthe biomethane it produceswill achieve two ROCs under the revised and reformed RO procedure.
	By removing the carbon dioxide and other impurities, biogas can also be used to make biomethane. Theoretically, it is possible to inject biomethane directly on to the gas network in the UK, provided that the biomethane can meet the gas quality standards and pressure requirements of the national grid. The Heat Call for Evidence invited contributions on the potential of biomethane, the barriers to its deployment, and how best to tackle these. We will be feeding these considerations into our broader work on the renewable energy strategy. Until we have reviewed the evidence about the costs and processes involved in upgrading biogas to biomethane and injecting it into the gas system, we cannot judge what potential unintended or undesirable consequences might flow from the changes to the duties of the Secretary of State and the authority that are being proposed.
	Moreover, we need to look at this matter in the round. We need to assess how biomethane fits with the ongoing work to develop a new renewable energy strategy by spring 2009. That will include looking at all renewable heat technologies and potential support mechanisms, rather than focusing on a single technology, as the new clause does. The kind of market enablement that it would provide thus seems entirely premature, and I ask hon. Members not to press it to a Division.
	New clause 21 proposes changing section 185 of the Energy Act 2004. Section 185 was introduced as a transitional provision to ease the implementation of cost-reflective transmission in Scotland. It allows the Secretary of State to adjust transmission charges in a particular area of the country to help to mitigate any material hindrance to renewables development caused by the charges.
	The new clause proposes the following changes to expand the scope of section 185: removing the provisions that set time limits on the duration of a scheme adjusting transmission charges, and removing the requirement that only one scheme can be in force under section 185 at any one time. We are in the process of analysing whether there is a case for adjusting transmission charges on the Scottish islands under section 185. Renewable developers also face other practical issues, and that fact, along with section 185's narrow focus on transmission charges, makes me believe that it is not the right instrument for supporting the development of renewables for the country as a whole.
	Moreover, as we have just discussed, negotiations are under way at a European level to grant renewables priority access to the grid, and I have also made it clear that transmission will be one of the issues that will be closely examined in this summer's consultation on our renewable energy strategy. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press the new clause to a Division.
	On amendment No. 65, I would like to remind hon. Members of why we have included clause 78 in the Bill. We did so, first, to introduce flexibility in the timing of our annual energy report and, secondly, to remove statutory requirements that are either replicated elsewhere or are over-prescriptive. I believe it is right that we streamline our reporting requirements to ensure that our report is topical. We need reporting to be sufficiently flexible so as to allow us to exclude less relevant technologies and to include more relevant ones as developments dictate. Our changes facilitate that and, as such, we should retain them as part of the Bill.
	There was some concern in Committee that we were repealing the requirement to report on energy efficiency. Let me reassure hon. Members that that important issue will still be covered in a number of reports produced by Government: under the Housing Act 2004, we are required to report on energy efficiency targets in residential accommodation; we produce the UK energy efficiency action plan, which we will regularly update as required under the EU services directive; and we would also expect to capture energy efficiency issues as part of our reporting on carbon emissions in the annual sustainable energy report.
	I hope I can also reassure the House that we will still be reporting on the important issue of security of supply through the energy markets outlook, which is a commitment from the 2007 energy White Paper, and as a result of the duties to report under two EU directives relating to supply of gas and electricity. I remain convinced that those reports will cover the practical information on security of supply in which Parliament and wider stakeholders would be interested.
	Our proposals to create some flexibility in the reporting period and cycle were designed to ensure that we could publish a report that was as relevant as possible by timing its publication around the availability of the most recent data. Such an approach would also allow us to join up with the reporting cycle proposed in the Climate Change Bill. I therefore listened with interest to the concerns being raised in Committee that our proposal to introduce flexibility on the reporting period and publication date could raise the spectre of the Government being tempted to use that flexibility to take the opportunity to delay publication of our report in order to obscure bad news. That was never our intention. The Government take the issue of reporting progress very seriously.
	Even so, I have reflected on those concerns and considered whether there was an alternative way to allow the Government to produce a more relevant and up-to-date report while meeting the concerns about flexibility. In view of that, I have asked my officials to review whether we should consider a specific reporting period or specifying a publication date. The Government will return to the issue in due course, and I therefore hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
	Finally, I deal with feed-in tariffs and new clause 4, which I know are of some interest to the House. For those who take an interest in contemporary Labour history, it is interesting to note that this time my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) is supporting new clause 4.

Alan Simpson: I have always argued that clause 4 would be back.  [ Laughter. ]

Malcolm Wicks: Indeed.
	I am not surprised that we are again revisiting this issue and that there is considerable cross-party support for a feed-in tariff for microgeneration. Although I can appreciate the desire to ensure that we have the right incentives and mechanisms in place to increase the deployment of renewable energy, especially in the light of our EU 2020 target, I cannotfor reasons that I hope to convince the House ofsupport this particular new clause. It seeks to require the Secretary of State to introduce a feed-in tariff, but it does not specify the size of generation it covers. It could cover all sizes of energy generation, large as well as small. If adopted, that could have a potentially serious effect on investor confidence.

Hugo Swire: Does the Minister agree that it would be an enormous assistance to the production of renewable energy, through the utilisation of waste or bio products, in rural areas such as my own if we had some mechanism that would reward that better?

Malcolm Wicks: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed with my argument.
	I turn to the effect that amending the Bill in the way suggested would have on large-scale generation. The renewables obligation has been hugely successful since its implementation in 2002, adding some 2 GW of new renewable capacity. Hon. Members sometimes underestimate the momentum now behind renewables in this country and therefore inadvertently talk down the great efforts that have been made by that sector. In addition to the 2 GW that we now have, the renewables obligation has also been the major incentive for the 1.5 GW of renewables capacity that is now under construction, the 6.5 GW that has been consented and is awaiting construction and the 10 GW that is now in the planning process. That amounts to an additional 18 GW of pipeline projects in just six years of operation.
	Most weeks, a couple of hon. Members approach me to urge that I not go ahead with a wind farm in their constituency. If we were not doing some of the right things, I would not be getting those representations, although that is not to say that we will always agree to every project.
	It is also important to recognise that later this year the UK will probably overtake Denmark as the world's leading nation in offshore wind generation. I am also pleased to remind the House that some months ago we gave planning consent to the biomass plant in Port Talbot, which will be the world's largest. I do not accept the criticism that we have stalled or are moving slowly on this issue. We started from a low base, and Opposition Members can explain that, because it did not occur under our stewardshipalthough that is rarely recognised in speeches. We started from a low base, but there is now a great deal of momentum.
	Much has been said about the success of feed-in tariffs in other countries, particularly Germany. We should remember that Germany has benefited from a consistent supportive policy, as the Secretary of State reminded us, since the early 1990sa period when I had no responsibility for such matters. The consistency of that approach has been a big part of Germany's success, giving investors a solid base in which to invest. Consistency is important in relation to the renewables obligation, which is why I mention it. Whatever the merits of feed-in tariffs in other countries, we need to consider what will work best in the UK. I know that it is sometimes tempting to go to a country such as Germany and say that everything looks greener, but we need to beware of simple comparisons.
	Feed-in tariffs and the renewables obligation are simply different methods of providing support to renewables projects. There should be no theology about this. We are talking about different mechanisms and which mechanisms might be fit for purpose in the UK.

Mark Fisher: Is my hon. Friend saying that things are not better in Germany, that we do not have things to learn from that country and that we should not be following it down this road?

Malcolm Wicks: I am not saying that. I want to continue with my argument. We have things to learn from one another when it comes to climate change and carbon emissions. Maybe Germany can learn something from us about the need for a major demonstration project on carbon capture and storage in Germanyanother way of cutting carbon emissions. I refuse to believe that somehow things are altogether better in another country than they are in the UK.

Gregory Barker: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: Not just yet, although it is nice to see the hon. Gentleman.
	People sometimes talk about feed-in tariffs as though they were cost-free. That is not the case. We need to look at the costs as well as the benefits. As the International Energy Agency's 2007 report on the German system recognises:
	The country's feed-in tariff for renewables has resulted in rapid deployment of new electricity capacity, but has done so at a high cost.
	The IEA report estimates that the German feed-in tariff regime between 2000 and 2012 will result in payments of 68 billion, of which some 30 billion to 36 billion will be the additional costs of renewables. It is important to point those facts out. By 2012, the annual cost would be between 8 billion and 9.5 billion.
	It is also worth reporting the IEA's finding that solar PV would provide some 4.5 per cent. of Germany's electricity while taking some 20 per cent. of the potential payments. When we compare systems, it is important that we look at the costs as well as the benefits.

Paul Farrelly: I apologise that I was unable to be present to hear all the Minister's comments. As I left my office, I heard on the monitor some of his arguments against new clause 4 and they seemed reminiscent of those used by the Department on the subject of agency workers: we ought not to do anything here, because it might scupper our efforts in Europe. In fact, Britain was not playing ball with Europe in the most progressive way.

Malcolm Wicks: I think that I need to reflect further on the comparison, which has not immediately struck me as helpful, but it might be. I will reflect on it.

Hugo Swire: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: Not just yet, no, as I have given way to the hon. Gentleman a couple of times. I shall come back to him later.

Alan Simpson: I am grateful for the Minister's comments on the cost, but does he also accept that we need to take on board, in full, the German Government's report on costs and on economic savings that come out of their commitment to renewables? Their figures show clearly that they can deliver savings of up to 5 billion a year, and the economic benefits of 250,000 new jobs generate spending in the economy. Meeting their own energy needs rather than having to buy from external sources is an enormous cost saving as well as a huge boost to their energy security.

Malcolm Wicks: I agree that we need to look at both costs and benefits, but we also need to accept that long-term consistency is the hallmark of the German regime. Therefore, it might not be sensible for us to change horses now and move away from the RO.

Hugo Swire: The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) is right to suggest that we need leadership from the Minister and the Government, because we are simply not getting it. The Minister says that he is weighing up the costs and the benefits, but I can tell him that the costs are the subsidies involved, and that the benefit is that microproducers will be encouraged to take energy production seriously. The Government need to lead on this, because otherwise we will fall behind other countries just as we have already fallen behind Germany.

Malcolm Wicks: As far as Germany is concerned, we must remember that the endgame of all the different mechanisms is to reduce carbon emissions. Again, I refuse to accept the simple comparison that suggests that Germany is in a better place than we are

Gregory Barker: It is!

Malcolm Wicks: I shall explain what I mean, as I want to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. Per capita carbon dioxide emissions of 9,937 kg in the UK compare with 10,936 kg in Germany, which suggests that something is going right here. Moreover, energy use per capita is significantly higher in Germany than it is in the UK. We have to careful about comparisons, because the endgame is about two thingsclimate change and energy security.
	On consistency, industry representatives have told us again and again that they want the Government to ensure that decisions are implemented as quickly as possible so that investors can rely on a stable and consistent policy framework. We have given that commitment, so the new clause could have an effect opposite to what those who propose it intend. Industry and investors have told us that it would be likely to create uncertainty in the market that would lead to delays in new investment.
	We are moving forward with reforming the RO. Indeed, the Bill amends the RO to make it sensitive, and it will remain the main policy mechanism for renewable electricity. Any move that threatens to replace the RO would destroy investor confidence and would be likely to result in significant delays to projects coming on line. That could put the delivery of the EU emissions target at risk.
	The Government have also received a clear steer from industry that financial support for large-scale generation is not the main barrier to delivering more renewable energy. We are also working hard, as colleagues know, to address a range of other factors, including the planning system and grid access.
	I want to turn now to smaller-scale generation.

Elliot Morley: Will the Minister give way?

Malcolm Wicks: If my right hon. Friend is not going to talk about smaller-scale generation, I will give way to him.

Elliot Morley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Many of us accept that there has been consistency in Germany about the feed-in tariff, and that we have been consistent about ROs, but all sorts of new micro-technologies are being developed and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) has made a persuasive case about them. The Minister is about to deal with those new micro- technologies, but is he prepared to look at different ways to incentivise that new sector that would not disturb the consistency that he has described?

Malcolm Wicks: As I anticipated, my right hon. Friend's question leads me into the next section of my argument. It is important, because I sometimes think that there is a bit of confusion in the debate about renewable instrumentsthat is, feed-in tariffs as opposed to ROs. Are we talking about how to incentivise all renewable projects, macro as well as micro, or is the House mainly interested in microgeneration? That is why I now want to discuss smaller-scale generation, which has been the subject of much debate in the media and in this House, especially over the past week or so but also for a longer period of time. I recognise the great support for the early-day motion. I sympathise with, and fully support, people's yearning for appropriate incentives to encourage the faster take-up of microgeneration. Several hon. Members will know that I have long been an advocate of microgeneration, both in principle and through my attempted practice as a citizen. I have long held the view that if we are to tackle climate change and global warming, there will be important roles for big institutionsthe EU, the G8 and the United Nations big Governments and big corporations. There is also a need for a proper carbon market. However, I have also always taken the view that we need to empower more of our concerned citizensthe recycling generation, if I may call them that, who want to do something about their dwellings and community buildingsto be active citizens on behalf of the environment.

Colin Challen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Malcolm Wicks: Let me make some progress before I come back to my hon. Friend[Hon. Members: Give way!] I do not think that I will, because my hon. Friend is eager to hear my argument.
	Under the low-carbon building programme, we have made some 86 million available in capital grants to reduce the cost of buying and installing equipment. We have removed the need for planning permission for domestic installations that have little or no impact beyond the host property. People have called for that for some time, and the Governmentthe Department for Communities and Local Governmenthave listened. We have also announced double the support for all microgeneration technologies under the RO, once banding is introduced. That support will be maintained after the first banding review of 2013.
	We often hear that the RO is complex, especially for microgeneration, compared with Germany's feed-in tariff. I understand that there are 500 different feed-in tariffs in Germany, with about 120 to 150 more tariffs being added each year. That is not the simple, straightforward picture that some people assume is the case. However, we are not complacent about the changes required to simplify our RO. In April 2007, we introduced the use of agents within the RO. Since then, the number of microgenerators accredited under the RO has increased by more than 250 per cent. We have simplified the accreditation form, and such forms can now be completed and submitted online.
	Additionally, suppliers are voluntarily, albeit supported by the RO, offering a tariff system for electricity generation from microgenerationreally, a feed-in tariff. For example, Scottish and Southern Energy is offering 18p a kWh to small generators for their electricity that is exported to the grid. However, that is not all. We will launch a consultation this summer on what we should do to increase renewable energy use to meet our share of the EU 2020 target. That will cover a broad range of issues and involve collaborative efforts across Government and with business, consumers and the wider community. The proposals will strive for the best value for money for UK taxpayers and consumers. As the Prime Minister explained in November, we want a serious national debate about how to achieve our targets.
	Some hon. Members will be aware that I announced in Committee that as part of the strategy, we will examine a range of options further to support microgeneration, including a consideration of whether a feed-in tariff might be a better support mechanism than the renewables obligation for small-scale generationI am thinking of domestic dwellings, community schemes, small civic buildings and small businesses. It would not be right to impose a requirement to introduce a feed-in tariff now without first carefully examining precisely how it would operate, whether there might be better alternatives, and the impact that it might have. We need to be confident that any legislation covers all scenarios and does not impact negatively on existing legislation. In my view, such work can be taken forward only in the wider context of what else we might do to meet our target.

Colin Challen: rose

Malcolm Wicks: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Hon. Members: Never give up!

Colin Challen: I had nearly given up. I appreciate a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Minister says. There are lessons to be learned from Germany; one of them is that Germany is still proposing new coal-fired power stations without carbon capture and storage, so it is not all green on the other side of the street. My question is: if a group of people want to come together to set up some kind of community microgeneration, why should we set an artificial cap on the power that the group can generate? I think that he is saying that we would artificially cap microgeneration at, say, 50 kW to preserve the renewables obligation.

Malcolm Wicks: As we saw in the case of micro-hydro, there is always the issue of where one draws the line, yes? [Hon. Members: Yes!] I am happy to draw the line under the positive arguments that I am putting forward.  [Laughter.] It is nice to amuse the latecomers. As I have said, I recognise that there is a financial gap in the renewable energy strategy, and that there is a need for a new financial incentive. We will look properly at feed-in tariffsI said that weeks ago; I am not just saying it todayand at other mechanisms for householders and community schemes. I understand the importance of what my hon. Friend says, because renewables should not solely be about big corporations doing things to local communities. We should enable communities to do things for themselves as part of the active citizen agenda.
	I hope that hon. Members are reassured that we are taking the issues seriously. After the renewable energy strategy, we will bring forward appropriate proposalsincluding proposals for legislation, if necessaryas soon as possible. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South to consider withdrawing new clause 4 in light of my comments.

Alan Simpson: I have listened to the concerns and arguments that the Minister has put forward. Let me try to address two of his concerns, and then his arguments. The first concern is about the commitment that he has already made to considering the issue of microgeneration. The great difficulty is that there is a whole series of issues that the Government have agreed to consider. For instance, they agreed to look at the 2010 fuel poverty targets. Unfortunately, having done so, they decided that the targets were too difficult to reach, and that we will not meet them, so that commitment will not get us out of the mess that we are in.
	Secondly, the Minister expressed concern about the fact that if a feed-in tariff scheme were applied too widely, it could create chaos. He did not mention the fact that he would be in charge of determining how widely the scheme would apply, so the chaos would be his, as is the current chaos. We have to recognise that although good things that are beginning to happen, they are beginning to happen in a country that is at the bottom of the European renewables league. There is nothing in our programme that will allow us to meet the 2010 targets to which we have committed ourselves.
	What we are asking colleagues to vote for, through the new clause, is a commitment on the part of the Government to come back within a year with a framework that sets out how we would introduce appropriate feed-in tariff legislation that applies to the different technologies and to electricity generation, heat generation and the production of biogas. We are talking about a timetable, more than anything else.
	Let me explain the significance of the timetable. Last December, our Government sent Ministers to the conference on climate change in Bali. The scientists reporting to that conference said to global leaders that in the next five to eight years we will determine the fate of the generations that will follow. It is what we do in those five to eight years that will determine whether we pass the tipping-point for climate chaos or not. We cannot avoid having to deal with the crises ahead of us, but we do not need to allow chaos to develop. That requires us to act on a dramatic scale now. There is nothing in the framework before the House that will allow us or equip us to take that step. I am asking colleagues from all parties in the House to have the courage to take that step.
	I know that many of us have mentioned the name of Lily Allen during the debate, but I hope she will forgive me if I end with some lines from another singer, Tracy Chapman, who sung:
	A love declared for days to come,
	Is as good as none.
	Consultations without commitments are as good as none. The House today has the opportunity to make a commitment that crosses party divides, that crosses interests in society, but that unites us in a commitment to deliver something meaningful and sustainable. I hope we have the courage to do so.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	 The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 250.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5
	  
	Duty to protect public health

'(1) The Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29) is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 3D(2) (exceptions from sections 3A to 3C) delete the words or 37.
	(3) In section 29 (regulations relating to supply and safety), after subsection (2)(g) insert
	(h) specify the distance at which any new high voltage line should be installed from any existing development..
	(4) In Schedule 8 (consents under sections 36 and 37) at the end of paragraph 2(1) insert and the Health Protection Agency..
	(5) In Schedule 8 (consents under sections 36 and 37) in paragraph 2(2) after relevant planning authority insert or the Health Protection Agency.
	(6) In Schedule 8 (consents under sections 36 and 37) after paragraph 2(6) insert
	(7) In this Schedule Health Protection Agency has the same meaning as in the Health Protection Agency Act 2004 (c. 17) and includes any successor to its functions in respect of radiation.'. [Dr. Iddon.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Brian Iddon: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	This is a [ Interruption. ]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If hon. Members are remaining in the Chamber, will they please keep the level of their conversations down so that we can hear the hon. Gentleman moving this new clause?

Brian Iddon: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	This is an issue that I tried to raise in Committee by way of an amendment, but ironically it was not selected, so I am pleased to see that it has been selected for debate this afternoon. Many people have been worried about the possibility of a link between childhood leukaemia and electromagnetic fields from high-voltage power cables. As mentioned in Committee, the Department of Health funded the Draper report, which found that children living within 200 m of high-voltage power lines from birth had a 70 per cent. increased risk of developing childhood leukaemia.  [ Interruption. ] The Government have received recommendations for action on the matter from the Health Protection Agency, from SAGE, which is the Government's stakeholder group, and from Back Benchers, who carried out a public inquiry under the direction of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson).  [ Interruption. ]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House really must come to order for the remaining part of the debate.

Brian Iddon: The inquiry looked at the possible links between childhood leukaemia and EMF from the high-voltage power lines. The passage of the Energy Bill has provided the Government with an ideal opportunity to implement what we regard as precautionary measures to protect children's health. The Electricity Act 1989 provides the Secretary of State and the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, which is Ofgem's governing body, with a duty to protect the public from dangers arising from the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity. However, the Act specifies that that duty does not apply to applications for high-voltage overhead power lines. Subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause would remove that exemption.
	Electricity companies are subject to strict regulation, which is dominated by pricing factors. They will give only as much consideration to this issue as they are legally obliged to. A statutory responsibility to consider public health when installing new overhead power lines would allow the electricity companies to take precautionary measures and allay the concerns about passing on costs to the consumer. A statutory responsibility might also encourage creative solutions from the private sector concerning ways to reduce and prevent EMF exposure, or even industry voluntary codes on prudent avoidance, which would minimise cost to industry and electricity consumers. The other subsections of the new clause would give the Minister other powers allowing him to protect the public health of young children who live in close proximity to high-voltage power lines.
	The new clause would mandate the electricity transmission companies to put their new power lines as far away from buildings in which people live or work as possible. Given that a new power line will be built across Scotland shortly and that a major new power line will bring transmission from Scotland to the north of England, the new clause is necessary.
	In view of the limited time available, I hope that the Government will give the matter further consideration, if not today, because of lack of time, in the other place.
	 It being Six o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker  put  forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [22 January].

Clause 2
	  
	Prohibition on unlicensed activities

Amendment made: No. 2, page 2, line 28, at end insert
	'( ) But subsection (1) is subject to section [Exception for activities carried on partly on land etc].'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 7
	  
	Offence to carry on unlicensed activities

Amendment made: No. 3, page 4, line 33, at end insert
	'( ) But subsections (1) and (2) are subject to section [Exception for activities carried on partly on land etc].'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 16
	  
	Prohibition on unlicensed activities

Amendments made: No. 4, page 8, line 39, leave out 'other than' and insert 'except'.
	No. 5, page 9, line 13, leave out 'other than the territorial sea adjacent to Scotland'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 17
	  
	Licences

Amendments made: No. 6, page 9, line 17, for 'Secretary of State' substitute 'licensing authority'.
	No. 7, page 9, line 18, at end insert
	'(1A) The licensing authority is
	(a) in the case of a licence in respect of activities within section 16(2)(a) to (c) and a controlled place which is not in, under or over the territorial sea adjacent to Scotland, the Secretary of State,
	(b) in the case of a licence in respect of such activities and a controlled place which is in, under or over that territorial sea, the Scottish Ministers,
	(c) in the case of a licence in respect of such activities and a controlled place only part of which is in, under or over that territorial sea, either the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers, and
	(d) in the case of a licence in respect of activities within section 16(2)(d), whichever of the Secretary of State or the Scottish Ministers licenses the activities for the purposes of which the installation is established or maintained;
	and in this Chapter references to the licensing authority in relation to a licence falling within paragraph (c) are references to the person who grants the licence or, if the licence has not yet been granted, to whom the application for the licence was made.'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 18
	  
	Requirements relating to grant of licences

Amendments made: No. 8, page 9, line 26, leave out 'The Secretary of State' and insert 'Each licensing authority'.
	No. 9, page 9, line 27, leave out 'licences may be granted' and insert 'it may grant licences'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 19
	  
	Terms and conditions

Amendments made: No. 10, page 10, line 3, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'licensing authority'.
	No. 11, page 10, line 15, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'licensing authority'.
	No. 12, page 10, line 17, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'licensing authority'.
	No. 13, page 10, line 20, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'licensing authority'.
	No. 14, page 10, line 41, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'licensing authority'.
	No. 15, page 10, line 47, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'licensing authority'.
	No. 16, page 11, line 5, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'licensing authority'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 20
	  
	Content of licences: regulations

Amendments made: No. 17, page 11, line 11, leave out 'The Secretary of State' and insert 'Each licensing authority'.
	No. 18, page 11, line 12, after 'licences', insert 'granted by it'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 22
	  
	Offences relating to licences

Amendments made: No. 19, page 11, line 36, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'licensing authority'.
	No. 20, page 12, line 3, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'licensing authority'.
	No. 21, page 12, line 20, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'licensing authority'.
	No. 22, page 12, line 25, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'licensing authority'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 23
	  
	Secretary of State's power of direction

Amendments made: No. 23, page 12, line 34, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'licensing authority'.
	No. 24, page 12, line 35, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'licensing authority'.
	No. 25, page 12, line 37, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'licensing authority'.
	No. 26, page 12, line 40, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'licensing authority'.
	No. 27, page 13, line 8, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'licensing authority'.
	No. 28, page 13, line 10, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'licensing authority'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 25
	  
	Injunctions restraining breaches of section 16(1)

Amendments made: No. 29, page 13, line 22, at end insert
	'(Z1) Where the Scottish Ministers consider it necessary or expedient to restrain any actual or apprehended breach of section 16(1) in relation to a controlled place in, under or over the territorial sea adjacent to Scotland, they may apply to the Court of Session for an interdict.'.
	No. 30, page 13, line 23, after 'any', insert 'other'.
	No. 31, page 13, leave out line 25 and insert '
	(a) to the High Court for an injunction, or
	(b) to the Court of Session for an interdict.'.
	No. 32, page 13, line 26, leave out 'whether or not the Secretary of State' and insert
	'under this section whether or not the applicant'.
	No. 33, page 13, line 29, leave out from 'under' to 'thinks' in line 30 and insert
	'this section, the Court of Session may grant such an interdict, or the High Court may grant such an injunction, as it'.
	No. 34, page 13, line 34, leave out subsection (5). [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 26
	  
	Inspectors

Amendment made: No. 35, page 14, line 14, at end insert
	'( ) This section applies in relation to the Scottish Ministers and the functions of the Scottish Ministers under this Chapter as it applies in relation to the Secretary of State and the functions of the Secretary of State under this Chapter.'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 28
	  
	Requirement for public register

Amendments made: No. 36, page 15, line 1, leave out from 'if' to end of line 5 and insert '
	'(a) the Secretary of State thinks that disclosure of the information would be contrary to the interests of national security, or
	(b) the licensing authority thinks that disclosure of the information would prejudice to an unreasonable degree a person's commercial interests.'.
	No. 37, page 15, line 9, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'licensing authority'.
	No. 38, page 15, line 10, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'licensing authority'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 29
	  
	Abandonment of installations

Amendments made: No. 39, page 15, line 28, at end insert
	', subject to subsections (1A) and (2).
	(1A) In relation to a carbon storage installation established or maintained at a controlled place under a licence granted by the Scottish Ministers
	(a) the functions conferred on the Secretary of State by Part 4 of the 1998 Act are exercisable by the Scottish Ministers rather than the Secretary of State (and, accordingly, the reference in section 39(6) of the 1998 Act to either House of Parliament is to be read as a reference to the Scottish Parliament), and
	(b) the Scottish Ministers may make regulations providing that that Part applies with such other modifications as may be specified in the regulations.
	(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), orders under section 32(1) are to be disregarded and installations used for a purpose ancillary to getting petroleum (within the meaning of section 1 of the 1998 Act) are not to be treated as carbon storage installations.'.
	No. 40, page 15, line 29, leave out 'But' and insert
	'In relation to any other carbon storage installation'.
	No. 41, page 15, line 30, leave out 'a carbon storage' and insert 'such an'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 30
	  
	Termination of licence: regulations

Amendments made: No. 42, page 15, line 37, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'licensing authority'.
	No. 43, page 15, line 39, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'licensing authority'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 33
	  
	Power of Secretary of State to transfer functions

Amendment made: No. 44, page 17, line 19, at end insert
	'(8) This section applies in relation to the Scottish Ministers and any functions conferred on them by or under this Chapter as it applies in relation to the Secretary of State and any functions conferred on the Secretary of State by or under this Chapter, except that
	(a) in its application to the Scottish Ministers the reference in subsection (4)(b) to the Consolidated Fund is to be read as a reference to the Scottish Consolidated Fund, and
	(b) the reference in that subsection to section 188 of the Energy Act 2004 is to be read as a reference to that section as applied and modified by subsection (12) (inserted by paragraph 13(e) of Schedule 1 to this Act).'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 34
	  
	Chapter 3: interpretation

Amendment made: No. 45, page 17, line 33, at end insert
	'licensing authority has the meaning given by section 17(1A).'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 67
	  
	Persons who may be required to submit abandonment programmes

Amendment made: No. 46, page 55, line 47, at end insert
	'(7) In section 31 of that Act (notices: supplementary provision), before subsection (1) insert
	(A1) The Secretary of State may not give a notice under section 29(1) in relation to an offshore installation to a person (P) who, in relation to the installation, falls within paragraph (b) or (c) of section 30(1), if
	(a) P is not entitled to derive, and never has been entitled to derive, any financial or other benefit from the installation, and
	(b) P is not, and never has been, a person within section 30(1)(a), (ba), (d) or (e) in relation to the installation.
	(B1) The Secretary of State may not give a notice under section 29(1) in relation to an offshore installation to a body corporate if
	(a) the body corporate falls within paragraph (e) of section 30(1) (and no other paragraph of that section), and
	(b) the body corporate falls within that paragraph by reason only that it is associated (within the meaning given by section 30(8)) with a person to whom the Secretary of State may not give a notice in relation to the installation by virtue of subsection (A1).
	(8) In section 34 of that Act (revision of programmes), after subsection (3) insert
	(3A) A proposal that a person who is or has been within paragraph (b) or (c) of section 30(1) is to have a duty to secure that a programme is carried out may not be made if the Secretary of State would be prevented from giving a notice under section 29(1) to the person by virtue of section 31(A1) if the programme had not already been approved under this section.'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 88
	  
	Subordinate legislation

Amendments made: No. 47, page 76, line 16, after 'Secretary of State', insert 'or the Scottish Ministers'.
	No. 48, page 76, line 29, after 'Secretary of State', insert 'or the Scottish Ministers'.
	No. 49, page 76, line 33, after 'Act', insert
	'or an Act of the Scottish Parliament'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 89
	  
	Parliamentary control of subordinate legislation

Amendments made: No. 50, page 77, line 5, after 'section', insert '[Smart meters: supplemental](3)'.
	No. 51, page 77, line 5, after 'Act' insert
	'or an Act of the Scottish Parliament'.
	No. 52, page 77, line 11, at end insert
	'( ) In the case of a statutory instrument containing an order or regulations made by the Scottish Ministers, this section has effect as if
	(a) in subsection (1) the reference to either House of Parliament were a reference to the Scottish Parliament,
	(b) in subsection (2)(b) for 91(2)(a) there were substituted 91(3)(a), and
	(c) in subsection (3) the reference to each House of Parliament were a reference to the Scottish Parliament.'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 91
	  
	Minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: No. 53, page 77, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert
	'(a) an Act, or Act of the Scottish Parliament, passed before the end of the session in which this Act was passed, or
	(b) an instrument made before the end of that session,'.
	No. 54, page 77, line 24, at end insert
	'(3) The Scottish Ministers may by order make such modifications of
	(a) an Act, or Act of the Scottish Parliament, passed before the end of the session in which this Act was passed, or
	(b) an instrument made before the end of that session,
	as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate in consequence of Chapter 3 of Part 1 of this Act as that Chapter applies in relation to the territorial sea adjacent to Scotland (within the meaning of that Chapter) or in relation to functions of the Scottish Ministers.'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 93
	  
	Transitional provision etc

Amendments made: No. 55, page 77, line 30, at end insert
	'(1A) The Scottish Ministers may by order make any transitional, transitory or saving provision which appears appropriate in consequence of, or otherwise in connection with, Chapter 3 of Part 1 of this Act as that Chapter applies in relation to the territorial sea adjacent to Scotland (within the meaning of that Chapter) or in relation to functions of the Scottish Ministers.'.
	No. 56, page 77, line 31, after '(1)', insert 'or (1A)'.
	No. 57, page 77, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert
	'(a) an Act, or Act of the Scottish Parliament, passed before the end of the session in which this Act was passed, or
	(b) an instrument made before the end of that session.'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 94
	  
	Commencement

Amendment made: No. 58, page 77, line 39, after 'sections', insert
	', [Power to amend licence conditions: smart meters], [Power to amend licence conditions: procedure], [Smart meters: supplemental] (and sections 88 and 89 in so far as those sections apply in relation to orders made under section [Smart meters: supplemental](3)),'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 96
	  
	Extent

Amendment made: No. 59, page 78, line 33, at end insert
	'( ) sections [Power to amend licence conditions: smart meters], [Power to amend licence conditions: procedure] and [Smart meters: supplemental] (smart meters).'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Schedule 1
	  
	Amendments relating to Chapters 2 and 3 of Part 1

Amendments made: No. 60, page 80, line 19, leave out 'as mentioned in that subsection' and insert
	'in the course of carrying out an activity for which a licence under section 3 of the Energy Act 2008 is required'.
	No. 61, page 80, line 25, at end insert
	'(5) Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to anything done in, under or over the territorial sea adjacent to Wales or Northern Ireland in the course of carrying on an activity for which a licence under section 17 of the Energy Act 2008 is required.'.
	No. 62, page 84, line 10, at end insert
	'(e) after subsection (11) insert
	(12) This section applies in relation to the Scottish Ministers as it applies in relation to the Secretary of State, and in its application to the Scottish Ministers it is to be read as if for subsections (6) and (7) there were substituted
	(6) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument and are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.
	(7) Section 192(4) applies in relation to the power of the Scottish Ministers to make regulations under subsection (6) as it applies in relation to an order or regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Treasury.
	(7A) The references in this section to relevant energy functions are references to the functions of the Scottish Ministers under
	(a) Chapter 3 of Part 1 of the Energy Act 2008, or
	(b) so much of any Community instrument as has effect in connection with
	(i) any activity mentioned in subsection (8)(db), or
	(ii) any activity mentioned in subsection (8)(h) to the extent that the activity is carried on in connection with an activity mentioned in subsection (8)(db).,
	and as if the reference in subsection (11) to the Consolidated Fund were a reference to the Scottish Consolidated Fund.'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Schedule 4
	  
	Minor and consequential amendments

Amendment made: No. 63, page 130, line 34, at end insert
	'5A In section 34 (revision of programmes)
	(a) in subsection (2)(a), after (b) insert (ba),, and
	(b) in subsection (3) omit (d) or.'. [Malcolm Wicks.]

Schedule 5
	  
	Repeals

Amendment made: No. 64, page 132, line 9, at end insert
	
		
			  'In section 34(3), (d) or.'. 
		
	
	 [Malcolm Wicks.]
	 Order for Third Reading read.[Queen's  Consent  a nd P rince of Wales's C onsent  signified.]

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The Bill, taken with the Planning Bill and the Climate Change Bill, represents a coherent legislative response to the challenges of tackling climate change and ensuring secure energy supplies.
	Like many colleagues, I recognise that the challenges of global warming and energy security are two of the big questions and big themes for the 21st century. Against that rather grand backdrop, the Bill deals with specific but important issues. With the UK projected to import well over 50 per cent.possibly much moreof its gas by 2020, a fit for purpose regime for offshore gas projects is essential.
	The Bill makes important amendments to current offshore legislation to create a new regulatory and licensing framework specifically designed for offshore gas storage and offshore liquefied natural gas unloading projects. That will simplify the regulatory process and create greater clarity and certainty for investors.
	The Bill also creates a new regulatory framework for offshore carbon dioxide storage projects. While there has been considerable debate about the Government's carbon capture and storage demonstration competition, there is agreement in all parties that CCS is a vital technology for the future. Provisions in the Bill will help enable its long-term development.

Graham Stuart: The Government said in 2003 that action on CCS was urgent. Does the Minister agree that progress since thennearly five years agohas been pitifully slow?

Malcolm Wicks: No, I do not. However, I agree with the slightly different proposition that the UK is among a small group of lead nations on CCS. If we consider those that take the matter seriously and are pursuing demonstration projects, we cannot include many countries. With Norway and one or two others, we are a lead nation. I made that point earlier when quarrelling with the idea that the German grass is necessarily greener. I am proud that the UK will spend considerable amounts of public money demonstrating the application of CCS. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to put that on the record.
	I am especially pleased that we have been able to extend the provisions on CCS to Scotland. That will ensure a single UK-wide regime for CCS, giving industry greater confidence and clarity, supporting investment in that vital new technology.
	On renewables, our first priority must be, through the Bill, to maximise the renewables obligation's effectiveness. The Bill's reforms to the RO will help promote more rapid deployment of a wider range of renewable technologies, making it 30 per cent. more efficient in renewables deployment from 2009 to 2015.
	Although microgeneration is not in the Bill, we have had a useful debate about it. I repeat our commitment that, as part of the renewable energy strategy, we will consider mechanisms to incentivise microgeneration further, including feed-in tariffs.
	Underpinning our ambitions for greater levels of renewable electricity, the Bill will ensure that we have the infrastructure in place to transmit offshore renewable electricity to the onshore grid. This major area of work will continue after the passage of the Bill. In the short term, however, the Bill will add to existing powers to ensure that Ofgem can run cost-effective and efficient competitive tender exercises for offshore transmission licences. Introducing competition will help to avoid unnecessary delays and costs to offshore renewables projects, ultimately reducing risks and supporting investment.
	There has been significant debate about the measures in the Bill that cover the decommissioning of energy installations, in particular those relating to new nuclear power. Although one of the objectives of our energy strategy is to support investment, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that adequate protections are in place to ensure that the environment is protected and that the risk of costs falling to the Government is minimised. The Bill strengthens the existing decommissioning regime for both offshore renewables and oil and gas installations. The amendment that the Government have made to that area of the Bill will ensure that our legislation supports an active oil and gas sector in the UK continental shelf.
	We have always been clear that developers and operators of new nuclear power, not the Government, must meet the full costs of decommissioning and their full share of waste management and disposal costs. The Bill provides the new legislative framework to ensure that all operators have in place a funded waste and decommissioning programme before operation of a power station commences. It will be a criminal offence to operate new nuclear power stations without an approved programme in place. To ensure that potential investors fully understand their liabilities, the Government have committed to establishing a fixed price for the disposal of new nuclear waste, which will be based on expected costs, including a significant risk premium.

John Redwood: Does the Minister not agree, however, that in order to encourage the investment that we need in capacity of all kinds, in both oil and gas and electricity generation, we need low and stable taxes? Is he becoming concerned, as many business people are, that taxes are now rather high, unstable and capricious, and often enforced rather unpleasantly by the Revenue?

Malcolm Wicks: The right hon. Gentleman has found a nuclear peg on which to hang a familiar theme. When I talk to commercial operators, I am encouraged to find a great deal of confidence in the UK regime. That is important, given the significant amounts of investment that we will need in the next 10 or so years.
	I am pleased that today's amendment to the Bill will enable us to add greater transparency to the process, by making it explicit in the Bill that the Government have the power to enter into the fixed price arrangement. The measures in the Bill reflect the fact that fossil fuels will continue to play a role in a diverse energy mix, alongside low-carbon generating options. As such, the amendments that the Bill makes to oil and gas regulation are designed to support ongoing production from the UK continental shelf and to reflect the evolving commercial environment in the oil and gas sectors.
	Finally, we have introduced an enabling power to underpin the roll-out of smart meters, to medium-sized businesses in the first instance, but potentially to all energy consumers, including domestic customers. The Bill also contains a number of more minor areas of legislation. As a whole, the Bill will improve our regulatory framework and help create the right environment to encourage timely investment in diverse, increasingly low-carbon energy sources. I commend the Bill to the House.

Alan Duncan: May I express our gratitude at the outset to the Clerks and the officials for their work behind the scenes on the Bill? The passage of any legislation takes a lot of work. We are grateful for their professionalism and assiduous attention to the way the House works.
	The Bill does not really live up to its title. It has come out of Committee after hours of exhaustive debate, but has been largely untouched by the wisdom of colleagues from any part of the House. There has been a clarification here and a little syntactical tweak there, but it is a pretty thin document that waits to be sent to the other place.
	The Bill's lack of scope and ambitionproblems that we identified at the start of its passagereflect a regrettable absence of decision making in Whitehall. There is some evidence of strategic thought, however. In the past 10 years, there have been innumerable White Papers and lots of reports and reviews, but when it comes to taking what the Prime Minister enjoys calling tough, long-term decisions, Ministers have mumbled their excuses and hidden from their responsibilities. Creating yet another review or holding yet another consultation might seem like a great listening exercise, but it does not give us the action that we need as quickly as we need it.
	The one thing that we have got out of the Bill is a raft of consultationsno fewer than sixon a series of subjects that we have been talking about and consulting on for years, including microgeneration, decentralised energy and feed-in tariffs, which the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) argued for so persuasively this afternoon. Other subjects for consultation include smart meters, the role of Ofgem and priority access to the grid. Only this afternoon, yet another three consultations on smart meters were announced. There is nothing in that list that anyone in the energy industry finds particularly revolutionary any more. Most of it is quite well known and largely uncontroversial.
	Those ideas have become basic, additional measures that would help the Government to meet their stiff targets on renewables and emissions for 2020 and 2050. I suspect that if we do not put some of them in place right now, today, we will curse our lack of urgency in 10 years' time. It is a great shame that the Government have been unable to find room in what is supposed to be a broad Energy Bill for many of the amendments that have been debated. However, they might be pressed more rigorously in another place.
	The House has, to some extent, been duped. The Bill is not really an Energy Bill, but a Bill to facilitate nuclear power and create arrangements for decommissioning, all of which is fair enough. When the Government published their White Paper in January, we made it clear that we supported their signal that nuclear power had a role to play in our future generating mix, but we sought particular assurances that there would be no subsidy. We also asked for clarity on the regime for new waste.
	The funded decommissioning statements that will provide financial cover for companies, and security for the taxpayer, seem to be a satisfactory way of proceeding, but we look forward to examining the details with more scrutiny in coming weeks and months. We will continue to press the Government to move swiftly and with urgency to resolve the high-level waste repository issue. With the current timetable, a repository probably will not be built until 2080. That remains a serious concern.
	The Bill pretends to sort out all things nuclear, but leaves large questions hanging over the commercial landscape that will govern it. Despite the Secretary of State's speeches about the economic benefits of the new generation of reactors, he has remained uncharacteristically tight-lipped on an issue that has equal resonance for the nuclear industry: the potential sale of British Energy. We are on the brink of one of the most strategically important commercial deals of recent years, but as yet we have heard nothing from the Government. There has been no formal statement of policy, no guidance on how they intend to proceed either with the total sale of British Energy or regarding their own share, and nothing on foreign ownership.
	What is the Government's position on the conflict between foreign ownership and national competition? What is their verdict on the choice between short-term cash from the disposal of their shareholding and long-term value, which is an alternative? Perhaps, most pertinently [Interruption.] The Secretary of State mutters, It is nothing to do with something, but if he [Interruption.] If he wishes to intervene, he is very welcome to do so. Perhaps, however, the House would prefer to hear a formal statement on what is going to happen properly in this sector, rather than the silence to which we have been subjected since the rumours hit the press.

John Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I had no intention of interrupting his peroration, but I want to say two things. First, this is a Third Reading debate, but the issues that he is raising have no relevance whatever to the Bill; we do not need to legislate through a Bill to cover the points that he mentions. Secondly, I remind him that British Energy is a publicly listed company, in which the Government are a minority stakeholder.

Alan Duncan: Indeed it is, but it is that minority stakeholding that we would like to know more about, because the implementation of the Bill may go one way or another depending on what happens to the commercial infrastructure in which it will have to work. About that, however, we hear nothing from the Secretary of State. Indeed, I wrote to him during the recess, requesting an urgent clarification of the Government's position before a sale goes through in order to avoid having to endure the embarrassment and confusion of a messy post-mortem thereafter, but I am afraid that the response was bland and unhelpful. We still await a clear public statement of the Government's principles on this vitally important commercial deal, which will determine the shape of electricity generation in the nuclear sector in the UK for the next 50 or even 100 years.
	Nor have we heard a whisper from the Department on the tendering of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority's contracts for legacy waste and its clean-up, which might have a price tag of 18 billion. How will the Government ensure that competition is maintained in this area of the nuclear sector? It is no good the Government sidestepping the key commercial issues that concern nuclear, while at the same time trumpeting their conceptual and economic benefits. Policy, as part of this Bill, needs to be created in a coherent and all-embracing way.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the existing range of nuclear power stations that generate base load electricity are ageing very rapidly and that we need to know what the replacements, of whatever type, will be? We need to be further down the track of granting permissions so that we can be sure that the new stations' building will be completed before the existing ones have to be retired.

Alan Duncan: It is exactly that side of the equation that I am asking the Secretary of State to express clearly, as it is no good having a Bill without the commercial apparatus necessary to go along with it to make it happen.
	That brings me to the Government's failure to take the opportunity to introduce new legislation to address the whole range of energy issues that are of paramount importance to the United Kingdom. We face an extremely difficult period both in retaining our capacity at a time when we will require a new 35 GW of electricity and in boosting our green industries in order to meet the 15 per cent. renewable energy target that the EU has imposed. The Government's refusal to take action on the less traditional approaches, particularly on feed-in tariffs, which they have just voted down for microgeneration, will only make life more difficult for them. I imagine that the issue has not gone away and that the other place will want to discuss it in detail and perhaps send the matter back to us. I am glad, however, that the Government have partly seen sense on smart metering, but they are still being timid and I simply do not understand why they wish to play it that way.
	By far the most glaring omission has been on energy efficiency measures to attack the scourge of fuel poverty. That, I think, will be seen in future as a great lost opportunity.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must confine his remarks to what is in the Bill rather than discuss what has been omitted from it.

Alan Duncan: The trouble is, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that pretty well brings things to a halt because there is almost nothing in it. There is so little in the Bill, which is why it is a great missed opportunity. Many people are asking why there are no energy efficiency measures in it, why it does not marry up with the commercial opportunities that are supposed to exist

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. People may well be saying that, but what is in the Bill is none the less what we discuss on Third Reading.

Alan Duncan: There are some important elements in the Billnamely its few nuclear clauses and, indeed, its reform of the renewables obligationbut the Government delude themselves if they think that this is the best way to make energy policy. If the industry is to make the correct investment in the UK, securing us clean and reliable energy, and if consumers are to be protected from the volatility of the wholesale energy markets, we need much more aggressive action. The real absence of decisions over the last 10 years has placed us in a very precarious situation. The Bill must not be used as an excuse for further hesitation.

Steve Webb: Having reflected on our consideration of the Bill over the past few months, I find it striking that only a short section of it deals with renewables, although the overwhelming majority of the amendments tabled in Committee and on Report focused on the subject. That demonstrates that the measures on renewables in the Bill do not go far enough. It would have been great if the amendment on feed-in tariffs had been passed today. I strongly suspect that when the Bill emerges from another place we shall see a similar amendment, which we would welcome.
	Although we have not opposed the banding of the renewables obligation, I think the Minister grossly oversold what has been achieved by that mechanism so far. If it is so wonderful, why has it taken so long for us to reach a point at which we are still so far behind? The Minister said earlier that we were making rapid progress and that we had started from a low base; but we started from a low base 11 years ago, we are still virtually at the bottom of the league table, and the Bill will not enable us to surge up to the place that we ought to occupy.
	We are witnessing the problem of departmentalitis. I simply cannot understand why an energy Department would not use an Energy Bill to promote energy efficiency. That would have been entirely proper and should have been in the first clause, but there is no mention of the subject in any of the clauses.
	On Second Reading, we observed that the Bill was about big energy. It was about paying for nuclear clean-up, about offshore gas storage and about carbon capture. We are pleased that we have been able to improve it at the margins, and we welcome the nod in the direction of smart meters, but the Bill does not provide much more than that. It is a case of Something will happen at some point, we hope. We are told that the Government have powers to make something happen within five years.
	If I have any overall observation about the Bill and the Government's energy policy, it relates to the breathtaking lack of urgency. The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart), who has now left the Chamber, commented that five years ago the Government had said that the issue of carbon capture was urgent. When chided, the Minister said We are on the brink of some demonstration projects, seeming not to consider that the elapsing of five years mattered particularly.
	The point is that our climate change targets are not being deferred by five years every time the Government delay for five years. When the Climate Change Bill is enacted, dates will be set, and the delays embodied by the Bill will make it harder and harder for us to hit the targets. Every extra year of the consultation, dither and delay that we are about to see on smart metering, even following the amendment of provisions in the Bill, will make it that much harder to achieve the vital goals that we need to achieve.
	We discussed the carbon capture provisions at some length. We have no problem with the Government's attempt to introduce post-combustion demonstration projects, but they have scuppered pre-combustion demonstration projects. They have picked a technology, and the history of Governments' picking technologies is not a good one.
	I cannot bring myself to describe the Bill as a missed opportunity, because it is much worse than that. I think that not only our nation but our planet will rue the day when it missed so many chances to do the right thing.

Brian Binley: I want to continue the theme adopted by the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb). I was rather encouraged when the Minister began by talking about carbon capture and storage. Great Britain has been given a massive opportunity by the 240 years or so of our energy requirements that lie beneath the surface of this country alone in coal seams, and the ability to extend oil production by up to 25 years. Together those factors could do much to solve our energy security problems, but sadly we have been very timid. The Government's actions in the Bill have closed down progress on carbon capture and storage. The Select Committee was given considerable evidence of thatsome of it as a result of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb)during its public sessions when we listened to witnesses.
	Let me give an example of the way in which the Government have disappointed the pre-combustion lobby. The Centrica-Progressive Energy project at Eston Grange on Teesside is a good example. It proposed an 850 MW integrated gasification combined cycle coal-fired power station with pre-combustion carbon dioxide capture on a brownfield site. Sadly, that has been scaled back now, and the company is reviewing the whole process. A 1.2 million scheme that would have supplied clean power to 1 million homes will not now go ahead, certainly in the form originally suggested.
	There is an even more vital concern in respect of carbon capture and storage. We have only a small window for enhanced oil recovery in the North sea. That will not take place now. On pre-combustion, we know the technology exists and is being used in various sites throughout the world. It is not quite put together in the way we would need in the North sea, but it is being used. Many North sea fields will reach the end of their working lives between 2015 and 2022, and that poses a massive problem. We will not be able to address it, because the competition has specified post-combustion and only a demonstration model, whereas I am told by experts that a commercial station can be up and running by 2014 if we have the courage to proceed.
	We know that we need to store carbon securely, and that can be done either in oil wells coming to the end of their lives, saline aquifers or old coal mines. What is the advantage of using oil wells in this respect? It is that by shoving carbon down there, we increase pressure and get about 15 per cent. more oil out of those wells. That amounts to up to 25 years of extra oil production. I am told that a 800 MW pre-combustion station will produce 5 million tonnes of carbon per year. One tonne produces three barrels of oil. I need hardly go on with the mathematicsI can see you looking at me in a concerned fashion, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The point I am making is that the Bill lays some foundations, but the way we proceeded with the competition that is vital to the Bill has closed down much of our ability to exploit two great resources in this country. That is a massive missed opportunity. As the hon. Member for Northavon says, it is more than that; it is a tragedy.
	I ask the Minister

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I just hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks a little more explicitly to the content of the Bill.

Brian Binley: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will do that. I ask the Minister to build on the Bill very swiftly, by looking at this matter much more seriously and coming forward with real proposals that will carry out the task we need to carry out by relating our coalfields to our oil fields, and thus to provide a real future for our children and grandchildren. The Bill is a start, but we need to go further, and I hope the Minister will tell us how that can happen.

Michael Weir: The Bill has some good points. The smart meter provisions are a step forward. I hope the roll-out will happen very quickly, but it is more important that we get it right than that we do it quickly, and the Government approach is to be commended.
	I have concerns about other parts of the Bill. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) on carbon capture and storage. The Bill now lays down a joint approach to this, and the Minister said that we are a world leader in CCS but, as has been pointed out, there has been a huge missed opportunity in the pre-combustion market. The Government have gone down the post-combustion route, basically, I think, because they see it as an exportable technology as it can be fitted to coal-fired power stations, but pre-combustion CCS could have given us a world lead in a technology that would have been of huge value to this country. That is a missed opportunity, and I am sad that that has happened.
	Earlier this afternoon, I spoke to my amendment No. 1 to clause 36, relating to the renewables obligation certificates banding and the interaction with grants. Although I did not press my amendment to a vote, the issue still gives me great concern. I understood the Minister's comments about state aid and the need not to give double help to projects, but he seemed to be saying that he was converting what was a grant into a loan. A company going for the high-end market and the high-end developments may receive a grant, but then it would receive fewer ROCs in the future or it would repay some of the grant.
	What was previously a grant for these developments is becoming a loan, and that will have an impact on cutting-edge emerging technologies and renewables; I am thinking of such things as deep water, offshore wind, and wave and tidal power. The Minister may come to regret that, but I hope that, even at this late stage, he will at least keep the matter under review to see whether it is having an effect on those technologies and whether we need to consider making a change.
	There was a great deal of discussion about transmission charges this afternoon, but as that issue is not covered in the Bill, I shall not say too much about it. I merely point out that it must be dealt with. The Minister again said that a review was ongoing, and I know that Scotland's First Minister has held discussions with Ofgem about the matter. I hope that something will come of all that, and that we will finally be given a solution to a long-running problem, which I seem to have been talking about for years.
	As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) said, much of the Bill deals with nuclear power. Fortunately, Scotland is not to have new nuclear power stations, because the Scottish Executive are much more sensible about these matters, but I remain concerned about parts of the Bill relating to the costs of nuclear power and the disposal of nuclear waste. Given what has happened, it seems that a massive bill is building up, and I suspect that it will affect all United Kingdom taxpayers.
	It is noticeable that the costs of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority have mushroomed almost out of control from the original estimate. If I remember correctly, when it was first proposed in this House the estimate was 20 billion, but the figure has now reached a probable 90 billion. I understand that the NDA is taking up 50 per cent. of the whole budget of the Department at present. I fear that the whole issue constitutes a blank cheque, and that all taxpayers will face a huge bill for nuclear power. My concerns in that regard therefore remain.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

EUROPEAN DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Committees),

Western Balkans and Eu-Serbia Co-operation

That this House takes note of European Union Documents Nos. 14999/07, 15001/07, 14995/07, 14993/07, 14996/07, 14997/07, progress reports on Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia, No. 15616/07 and Addenda 1 and 2, Draft Council Decisions on the signing and on the conclusion of the Stabilisation Association Agreement between the European Communities and its Member States and the Republic of Serbia, No. 15690/07 and Addenda 1 and 2, Draft Council Decision concerning the signing and conclusion of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community and the Republic of Serbia, and unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 15th February 2008, Interim Political Agreement on Co-operation between the European Union and its Member States and the Republic of Serbia; and supports the Government's position that European integration offers the best prospects for regional stability in the Western Balkans and is therefore in favour of a clear European perspective for the countries of the Western Balkans. [Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	 Question agreed to.

DRAFT CONSTITUTIONAL RENEWAL BILL (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 20th March, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on any draft Constitutional Renewal Bill presented to both Houses.
	 Ordered,
	That a Select Committee of eleven Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill (Cm. 7342).
	That the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 18th July 2008.
	That the Committee shall have power
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report from time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
	That Mr Alistair Carmichael, Mr Christopher Chope, Michael Jabez Foster, Mark Lazarowicz, Martin Linton, Ian Lucas, Fiona Mactaggart, Mr Virendra Sharma, Emily Thornberry, Mr Andrew Tyrie and Sir George Young be members of the Committee. [Mr. Alan Campbell.]

FERTILITY TREATMENT (DUDLEY PCT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Lynda Waltho: Thirty years ago, a female child was delivered by caesarean section at Oldham and District general hospital. She weighed 5 lb 12 oz, and her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Brown, named her Louise. Louise Brown was the first child to be conceived using in vitro fertilisation, whose pioneers were consultant gynaecologist Patrick Steptoe and Cambridge research physiologist Robert Edwards.
	Louise Brown's birth was a milestone. It marked the culmination of many years of research and trials, and the start of hope for infertile couples all over the world. Given that splendid history, I wonder why, 30 years on, today's couples up and down the country are still faced with heartache, frustration and depression when access to such groundbreaking and essential therapy is denied by nothing less than the infamous postcode lottery.
	I was made aware of the situation, particularly within Dudley primary care trust, when two of my constituents approached me on this very issue. Both those constituents are married to men who have fathered a child in an earlier relationship, yet, despite the fact that in both cases the child lives with their natural mother, and not with my constituent, both women are denied fertility treatment by Dudley PCT.
	The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), will know that a pattern of patchy access to fertility treatment had developed before the announcement by the then Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), following the publication of guidelines by what was then the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in February 2004. My right hon. Friend said:
	Our immediate priority must be to ensure a national level of provision of IVF available wherever people live. As a first step, by April next year I want all PCTs, including those who at present provide no IVF treatment, to offer at least one full cycle of treatment to all those eligible. In the long term I would expect the NHS to make progress towards full implementation of the NICE guidance.
	In providing this NHS service, as with all others, our priority must be to help those in greatest need. That is why I will be asking the NHS to give local priority to couples who do not have children living with them.
	That is an important point. My right hon. Friend continued:
	This will mean that thousands more couples should be able to have fertility treatment on the NHS whilst enabling the NHS to manage this in a realistic way.
	The NICE guidelines on the provision of IVF placed NHS assisted fertility services firmly in the mainstream of state-funded health care. They made explicit reference to clinical criteria such as the effect of age and weight on the outcome of treatment, but no recommendations were made for the use of non-clinical or social criteria in the provision of treatment. Of course PCTs have to balance budgets, decide priorities and commission services within available budgets, as well as balance individuals' needs and access to therapies. Unfortunately, that means that across the country many PCTs have developed their own social criteria effectively to ration treatment.
	Recent research on some 100 PCTs shows that 51 do not allow IVF to couples if one of them already has a child. It just depends on where people live. Indeed, one of my constituents was advised by a health professional to join a different GP practice or move over the border into Staffordshire or Worcestershire to improve her chances. What a way to run a service!
	My constituents and all other infertile women in Dudley are denied the right of access to treatment because of their partner's previous fertility. Is there any other treatment or branch of medicine that decides on someone's need or eligibility for treatment by looking at the health or history of their partner? This is akin to someone attending accident and emergency with a broken arm to be told by the doctor, Yes, your arm is broken, but we're not going to treat it because both of your husband's arms are fine. That is not fair or just. How does it fulfil the guiding principle of the NHS of care and treatment free at the point of delivery and according to need?
	One of my constituents described her feelings:
	While I am awaiting the decision of the PCT, I see all around me happy mums and dads with new...babies. I know that I should be one of them. I feel that at 38 my chances are slipping by and that the pen pushers don't care. They want me to appeal and to continue this charade until I am 40 and not eligible. Why don't I matter? Why don't they care? I'm now being treated for depression. My husband and I are now so desperate we may sell our house and go private. It's not right, it's not fair and they know it.
	The British Fertility Society surveyed NHS fertility treatment across England in 2006. It found that the number of cycles of treatment was increasing, but there were still some significant black holes. Despite the NICE recommendations, some 16 per cent. of clinics reported decreased support from local PCTs. There is still a great disparity, with some PCTs, such as Dudley, offering funding for only one round of treatment and others offering three, although a significant proportion are unable to follow through. There was also little indication that PCTs had made long-term plans to implement NICE guidelines and no reassurance that the full guidance will be implemented.
	The BFS makes 11 recommendations on social criteria for NHS treatment, which include: that waiting times for treatment should be the same as for any other medical conditions; that no woman should commence NHS-funded treatment after the age of 40; that women who are obese must initiate a weight-reduction programme; that single women and same-sex couples should have equal access; and, importantly, that if people have had children from a previous relationship, they should not be excluded from access to NHS treatment. The author of the study, Richard Kennedy said:
	The results of this survey suggest that there is no sense of any long term planning for the provision of fertility services and provide no reassurance that full implementation of the NICE guidance will be achieved as was recommended by the Secretary of State for Health...If we are to see an end to inequity of access across the United Kingdom there must be an explicit plan for the provision of three fresh cycles of IVF and consistency in the criteria used for NHS treatment. The criteria we propose, if adopted by all PCTs in England and Wales, would standardise access to treatment. We must use the findings of this survey to pursue the goal of full implementation of the NICE Guideline.
	I know from my recent correspondence with the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), that she is concerned about the situation, as are her colleagues. The Department of Health asked Infertility Network UK, on behalf of the Department, to undertake a project to liaise with PCTs and encourage the sharing of best practice, as well as to ensure that the voices of fertility patients are heard when decisions are made at a local level. Only 151 responses came back from the 303 PCTs. The results showed that 98 were funding only one cycle per couple, 32 provided two cycles and only seven provided the recommended three cycles. Of those PCTs, 50 per cent. do not fund frozen embryo transfer.
	Why is it important to get to the magical figure of three cycles? The chance of a successful birth in a single cycle of IVF is estimated at one in four for women under 35, which rises to 50 per cent. with three cycles. Of course, there are less likely to be multiple births when three cycles are offered because couples have three chances rather than one to become pregnant and are therefore less likely to opt for multiple transfer. In turn, that will mean safer pregnancies and births for mothers and children.
	Infertility causes emotional distress and pain. The desire to reproduce is part of life. When that process fails couples undergo significant distress, depression and ill health. Relationship failure often follows. They suffer physical and mental ill health and their self-worth plummets. Creating a family is central to the life plans of many people. Not everybody desires a child with the same intensityit is fundamentally an individual issue.
	As individuals in a welfare state, my constituents deserve equal and fair access to treatment. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, can help them to achieve this by insisting on the removal of the so-called social criteria, by making a sound commitment to fund both fresh and frozen embryo transfer and, of course, by insisting on full implementation of all NICE guidelines in this case without further delay.

Ben Bradshaw: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) on securing the debate and on bringing an important and sensitive subject into the public domain.
	People who seek help to have their own family have often gone through a time of great anticipation and preparation, when there was no doubt in their minds that they would have a child together and that it would be just a matter of time. They plan ahead and think that at the same time the following year they will have a child with them. They plan their lives around that thought.
	For someone in six or one in seventhe expected does not happen and the next step is to visit their GP to ask for advice. That might be a difficult step and the tests that follow lead to an anxious time. The tests might show the cause of the problem, or the cause might remain unexplained. Some couples may conceive a child during that time, but others will not and they will consider various treatments. In many cases, patients may start with the less invasive procedures, and some will get pregnant at that stage. However, for those who do not, treatments such as IVF or ICSIintracytoplasmic sperm injectionare the next, and last, step. More than 30,000 people in this country will have IVF in any one year, and currently about a quarter of them will be treated on the NHS.
	People with fertility problems who seek help from the NHS quite rightly see fertility provision as an integral part of the service but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge said, some will find that the NHS cannot help them to the extent that they expect. We are working hard to address the issues about access to NHS infertility treatment, and are making welcome progress. I shall update the House about that in a moment, but first I want to deal with the point that my hon. Friend made about the restriction of access to fertility services if a person or their partner has a child from a previous relationship.
	My hon. Friend made the point very eloquently that, if a woman has fertility problems, then to refuse to treat those problems because her partner has a child from a previous relationship is to ignore the woman's own, personal health problem. I recognise the points that my hon. Friend made, as I do the feelings of the womenor menwho are in that position. I also acknowledge the feelings of their partners. If there are anxieties and a feeling of injustice, they may even be sensed by the existing children.
	For access to IVF treatment, most PCTs apply the so-called social criteria, which means that there will be no IVF for couples who have a child from a previous relationship. Many PCTs say that IVF treatment cannot be offered if a person or their partner has a child from a previous relationship: some say that there should be no children from the current relationship, and others that there should be no children under 16 living with the couple. A very small number of PCTs require one partner to have no children, or say that they give individual consideration to partners with no children.
	The Government are aware that those are not the only access criteria applied by PCTs, but most of the others feature as clinical criteria in the NICE fertility guidelines. They include requirements to undertake a smoking cessation clinic or to lose weight, and so on, but those are clinical criteria set out by NICE and they are applied reasonably consistently across the country. Most PCTs have criteria relating to existing children from a previous relationship but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge rightly said, they are not uniform. Those differences are seen as unfair, and I share her discomfort about them.
	We are therefore addressing the problem in the following ways. We have asked the leading fertility patient support organisation, Infertility Network UK, to develop in partnership with the NHS a standardised set of access criteria that will include criteria for patients who have children from previous relationships. Infertility Network UK is looking at the range of criteria in application, and it is aiming to develop a standardised set that PCTs can take into account when planning their services.
	Infertility Network UK will also look at suggestions made by other groups, such as the British Fertility Society. The end result will be a tool that PCTs can use in planning their provision.
	Looking at the level of IVF provision in Dudley more generally, I am aware that the PCT offers only one fresh cycle of IVF to those who meet the access criteria. I recognise that patients in my hon. Friend's constituency would certainly wishand could expectthat provision to improve. A progression from one fresh cycle, the most basic level of provision, to one full cycle of IVF would be a starting point, together with a longer-term plan for the implementation of the full NICE guidelines. In response to my hon. Friend's concerns, I have asked Infertility Network UK, the leading fertility patient support group, to offer to meet the members of the independent Healthcare Commission in Dudley so that they can make known the views of patients about the level of provision locally, and hear the views of the commissioners. As a start, it may be helpful to give patients a transparent picture of the services that are being funded, so that they might understand why IVF does not at present have a higher level of priority locally.
	We want further improvements in the provision of fertility services and, to that end, we have started to monitor them. We will publish the results shortly, but even without that survey we know that some PCTs are providing two cycles of IVF or more. It will be helpful to demonstrate that that can be done, and that progression towards the implementation of the NICE guidelines can be achieved. Those PCTs' performance will be held up to public scrutiny by the independent Healthcare Commission in its annual health checks.
	Infertility Network UK has been working with us to improve access to services for fertility patients towards the implementation of the NICE guidelines. As well as developing standardised access criteria, it is working with PCTs to identify and disseminate best practice. The project, which is funded by us, began in 2006 with a survey of provision. It has continued with visits to 16 PCTs that offer a range of provision, and Infertility Network UK will be compiling its findings for dissemination.
	Additionally, we have set up an expert group on commissioning NHS infertility provision. Its membership is drawn from strategic health authorities, primary care trusts and Infertility Network UK. The group is identifying the barriers to the NHS progressing to implementation of the NICE fertility guidelines, taking account of the current variation in provision of IVF and ICSI among PCTs. It is also examining the variation in access criteria and the intermittent suspension of services in some locations. At present, only three PCTs have temporarily suspended services, and all are working towards reinstatement. The group is also working to ensure the production of a tool for PCT commissioners for making decisions on fertility provision to encourage gradual progress towards the full implementation of the NICE fertility guidelines.
	In carrying out its work, the group will take account of the Infertility Network UK project with PCTs advising on next steps and co-ordinating findings on good practice. It will also take account of the range of evidence to support the provision of IVF and ICSI, including the health gains for patients and health issues arising from infertility.
	We acknowledge that unacceptable variations remain in the provision of IVF throughout the country. Overall, there is a move towards the implementation of the NICE clinical guideline and general improvement, but there is still progress to be made in several PCT areas and more work to be done, especially on the social criteria to which my hon. Friend drew attention. I thank her for doing so, and recognise and acknowledge her concerns. I know that she is seeking improvements in provision in relation to fairness and equity. We share those values. We, too, are seeking to help PCTs to make just, transparent decisions on fertility treatment, which is not a traditional part of NHS care, but in which developments in technology have brought great advances in patient care and high expectations that the health service needs to meet.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Seven o'clock.